Art, Argument, and Advocacy

INTERNATIONAL DEBATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

by John Meany & Kate Shuster

ART, ARGUMENTAND ADVOCACY

MASTERING

PARLIAMENTARY

DEBATE

ArtArgument

and Advocacy

Mastering

Paliamentary

Debate

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 1

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 2

AIDSArt, Argument,

and Advocacy

Mastering Parliamentary Debate

JOHN MEANY AND

KATE SHUSTER

International Debate Education AssociationNew York • Amsterdam • Brussels

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 3

Published in 2002 byThe International Debate Education Association400 West 59th StreetNew York, NY 10019

© Copyright 2002 by International Debate Education Association

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, without permission of the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publishing DataMeany, John

Art, argument and advocacy: mastering parliamentary debate /John Meany & Kate Shuster. p.cm.Includes index.ISBN 0-9702130-7-71. Deabates and debating. I. Shuster, Kate, 1974- II.Title

PN4181 .M38 2002808.53--dc21

Printed in the United States of America

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 4

5

Table of Contents

Preface 6

Chapter 1 Parliamentary Debate:

Formats and Speaker Responsibilities 9

Chapter 2 Topics and Topic Interpretation 29

Chapter 3 Argument Theory for Debaters 57

Chapter 4 Case Construction 79

Chapter 5 Answering the Proposition Case 103

Chapter 6 Research and Evidence 117

Chapter 7 Opposition Strategy: Disadvantages 127

Chapter 8 Opposition Strategy: Counterplans 149

Chapter 9 Opposition Strategy: Critiquing 183

Chapter 10 Parliamentary Points 205

Chapter 11 Skills 241

Chapter 12 Tournament Administration

and Topic Selection 279

Appendix 1: Topics 301

Appendix 2: Resources 329

Sample American parliamentary

debate ballot 330

Sample British parliamentary debate ballot 331

Sample tournament calendar 332

Debate support Websites 334

Argument support Websites 335

Reference sites 335

Appendix 3: Glossary of Terms 337

Appendix 4: Sample Debate Transcripts 352

index 375

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 5

PREFACE

Parliamentary debate is dynamic, entertaining and challeng-ing. The world’s most popular form of academic and con-test debating, parliamentary debate is also the fastest

growing debating format. This is because it is uniquely accessi-ble. Parliamentary debate teaches sophisticated skills in extem-poraneous speaking, critical listening, critical thinking, research,and presentation.

Parliamentary debate is different throughout the world. This book pro-vides a comprehensive description of the American, or “two team,” formatand the British, or World Championship, “four team” format. Though nota comprehensive description of all parliamentary debate techniques andissues, the principles described in the text are relevant to any format.

The text is designed for novice and advanced competitors anddebate coaches, and is suitable for classroom instruction. The parlia-mentary debate format is appropriate for public, non-competitivedebating. We strongly believe in the value of classroom and publicdebates. Issues of controversy and concern for all individuals and com-munities demand that people be able to express themselves throughvoice and argument. The skill development in this text as well as theformat information we provide will assist in staging public events forclasses, community groups, non-profit organizations, governmentagencies, corporations, and activist groups on important matters oflocal, national, and international politics.

We have included all of the basic elements of public speaking, crit-ical thinking, critical listening, and research skills for new debaters.

6

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 6

7

PREFACE

The text also contains sophisticated argument skills for experiencedpractitioners that include exercises, sample speeches, excerpts, andresources, as well as a glossary and more than 1,000 potential debatetopics. All these resources are useful for novice and experienceddebaters as well as debate trainers and coaches. The best way to learnhow to debate is through constant practice. The exercises in each chap-ter are meant to help you learn how to use the vocabulary and conceptsin parliamentary debate gradually, rather than all at once. Some exer-cises may be profitably repeated with different topics and in differentgroups of debaters.

The text presents some technical jargon associated with debate, butwhenever jargon is used, a common or plain meaning description of thesame concepts is also given. Our goal is to help debaters adapt theirspeeches from the information in the text for use before inexperiencedor experienced judges or a diverse array of audiences. Jargon is notmeant to substitute for elegant rhetoric in parliamentary debates. Wehave included some jargon associated with other debate formatsincluding a policy or Lincoln-Douglas debate because many debaterslearn their skills from textbooks or online sites that use those formatsas models. Also, parliamentary debaters frequently participate in mul-tiple formats – international or American and others – as part of theirdebating experience. Policy and Lincoln-Douglas formats are debatedin several countries, so there is substantial overlap between debatecommunities. Debaters need to understand the jargon and techniquesof other formats to effectively counter those students with that experi-ence. We keep this information related to policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate to a minimum and always place it in the context of par-liamentary debate.

This book is designed to be read and studied over a period of time,rather than absorbed in a single sitting. While you read the text, youmay encounter vocabulary terms that you do not immediately under-stand. Take notes on these vocabulary words and closely examine theiraccompanying definitions or explanations.

We have included information on debate and argumentation theo-ry and practice to allow practitioners to innovate the thinking, practice,and craft of parliamentary debate. No community can remain static for

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 7

long. Debate is particularly dynamic. The norms and practices ofdebate are continuously reinvented by debaters and coaches alike. Wehope that this book will aid, rather than hinder, this process of growthand change in the debate community. We encourage readers to use thetext to develop their own exercises, and to adapt its precepts wherenecessary.

The authors wish to thank IDEA and Noel Selegzi for their sup-port of debate and of this textbook’s production in particular.

John Meany wishes to thank Robert Branham, the former direc-tor of debate at Bates College, an inspirational teacher of debate whointroduced this author to parliamentary debate. Bob was a brilliantdebate theorist with a commitment to debate education. John alsowishes to thanks his son, Jake Meany, for his sacrifices, patience, andsupport during the production of this book and current and formermembers of the Claremont Colleges Debate Union, who have sharedwith him in learning the art and practice of parliamentary debating.

Kate Shuster wishes to thank her mother, Sandra Shuster, for herunwavering support and love. She has been an inspiration in times oftrouble and prosperity alike; also her brothers, Matthew and Will; andher father, Don Shuster, who is missed. Kate also wishes to thank herdear friend Jon Brody, a former University of Texas debater, whoseexample and guidance taught her to be innovative and creative inthought as well as debate.

8

ART, ARGUMENT AND ADVOCACY

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 8

9

CHAPTER 1:

Formats and

Speaker

Responsibilities

Formats

Parliamentary debating formats vary among different countries,even within countries in different debate leagues or at special-ized tournaments. Rules for debating are formally established

and institutionally maintained; this chapter discusses two popular anddistinct parliamentary formats–the American format and British for-mat. In addition to formal rules (and it is important to note that thereare few “official” rules of parliamentary debating, which is one of themore attractive features of the event, regardless of format), there areinformal conventions. These latter guidelines are often understood, ormisunderstood, as “rules” for contest debating. The rules of debatingprimarily address speaking times, number of teams and speakers, orderof speeches, and decision making.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 9

The American format

A standard American competitive format for a parliamentary debateincludes two debate teams, one on each side of a motion. Each teamhas two people. One team supports a motion for debate (the motionis also known as the topic, proposition or resolution). The team sup-porting the motion is known as the proposition team. (In the USAand some other countries, the proposition team is also known as the“government.”) The proposition team has the burden to prove thatthe motion for debate is more probably true than false. In otherwords, the proposition team must convincingly demonstrate that ithas successfully supported the motion.

The other team in the debate is known as the opposition. (They arenot ever known as the anti-government, rebel alliance, revolutionaryfront or the oxymoronic Anarchists United.) The opposition teamargues against the proposition’s support for the motion.

For each debate, a motion is announced and the teams are given aperiod of time to prepare the debate. The typical preparation time peri-od is fifteen minutes, although there are variations. The debate beginsafter preparation time has ended.

There are six speeches in the debate. The first four speeches,known as constructive speeches, form the foundation of the debate.The proposition and opposition constructive speeches establish thecore arguments for each team’s side of the motion.

The latter two speeches are rebuttal speeches, with each side get-ting one speech to summarize. Each rebuttal speaker uses her speechto identify the salient issues for her team and propose the reasons whyher team has convincingly won the debate.

The debate proceeds as follows:• First proposition constructive speech 7 minutes• First opposition constructive speech 8 minutes• Second proposition constructive speech 8 minutes• Second opposition constructive speech 8 minutes


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 10

11

FORMATS AND SPEAKER RESPONSIBILITIES

• Opposition rebuttal 4 minutes• Proposition rebuttal 5 minutes

These speeches are also known by the following titles and abbreviations:

• Prime Minister Constructive (PMC)• Lead Opposition Constructive (LOC)• Member of Government (MG)• Member of Opposition (MO)• Lead Opposition Rebuttal (LOR)• Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR)

The speakers for the proposition open and close the debate. The open-ing speaker for each side presents two speeches in the debate – the open-ing constructive speech and the rebuttal speech. The second person oneach side delivers a single speech – the member speech for her team.There is no preparation time for speakers during the debate. Each speak-er, in appropriate turn, immediately follows the previous speaker.

There is a judge for each debate. In many debates, particularlythose directly determining the outcome of a tournament, there are pan-els of judges, typically three or five judges per panel, with individualdeliberation and a majority decision to decide a contest.

In some cases, there may be a designated Speaker of the House (or“Chair”) or presiding parliamentary officer. More commonly, however,the judge or designated individual on a panel of judges, functions asSpeaker of the House, introducing debaters for their speeches and rulingon parliamentary points directed to the chair. There is no preparationtime between speeches. After one speech is finished, the Speaker of theHouse calls upon the next debater to proceed.

A debate may have a designated timekeeper to track preparationtime and speaking time. In the absence of a timekeeper, the judge usu-ally keeps time. The timekeeper announces the end of preparationtime. Technically, the debate officially begins immediately at the con-clusion of the preparation time. The timekeeper signals time to thespeakers during the debate with hand signals or a series of cards indi-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 11

cating remaining time. For example, if a speaker is delivering a sevenminute speech and has used three minutes of her time, the timekeepershould signal “four,” the remaining time for the speech. The timekeep-er should never signal elapsed time in a speech. It is sufficiently chal-lenging to deliver a winning debate speech without having to performan arithmetic calculation to determine available speaking time. Theperson keeping time should signal the remaining time to the speakersat the passing of each full minute and at the half-minute mark of thefinal minute. The timekeeper should also note when the speaker has noremaining time.

The timekeeper announces available time for points of informationduring the constructive speeches. After the first minute and before thelast minute of each constructive speech, the timekeeper will “knock;”that is, rap her knuckles on a desk or table, slap a table with a gavel orpalm of her hand, ring a bell, fire a blast of an air horn, squeeze a duckunexpectedly, or perform some other brief, noisy gesture.

Each round of tournament debating has a different topic; themotion for debate is announced just before the debate begins. Thereare different approaches to the announcement of a motion. They arelisted in the order of their popularity.

• A motion may be attached to the ballot presented to each judge to com-plete regarding the outcome of the debate. (See the chapter on judgingfor more on ballots and decision making. A sample parliamentarydebate ballot is included in the resources appendix.) When the twoteams and judge arrive at the assigned location for the debate, the judgeannounces the motion to the teams and begins preparation time.

• The tournament may have a central gathering place. At that site, atournament representative will make a verbal announcement of themotion for all participants.

• A sheet of paper may be attached to the judge’s ballot. The sheet willcontain three potential motions for debate. The proposition team andopposition team each “strike” a debate topic, i.e., each remove amotion from the list. The remaining topic is the motion for the debate.The debaters then announce the topic to the judge and preparationtime begins.

12


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 12

13


• Two motions are attached to the judge’s ballot or announced at a cen-tral gathering place. One motion is "open" and the other is “closed.”(Open and closed motions are discussed in the chapter on topic inter-pretation.) For example, one motion may be “open” – “Bury it,” andother “closed” – “This House would eliminate the secret policy delib-erations of the WTO.” The proposition team selects either motion.

• A motion is attached to the judge’s ballot. The motion contains oppos-ing statements. For example, a motion might read “This Housewould/would not support NATO expansion into Russia.” The propo-sition team then selects either possibility for the debate. In otherwords, the proposition team may defend either “This House wouldsupport NATO expansion into Russia,” or “This House would notsupport NATO expansion into Russia.” In some leagues or tourna-ment competitions, it is appropriate for the proposition team todeclare their selection before preparation time begins. On other occa-sions, the proposition does not announce the motion for debate untiltheir opening speech.

The British format

A standard British intervarsity tournament substantially departs fromthe American parliamentary format. Each debate involves four teams,with two teams on each side of the motion. Each team has two people.As in the American format, the teams supporting the motion are knownas the proposition and the teams opposing them are known as the oppo-sition. This is one of many similarities between the American formatand the British format. The language and argument style of all parlia-mentary debating is liberally borrowed from the British, Irish andCanadian formats. This might explain the use of the titles “PrimeMinister” and “Leader of the Opposition” in American parliamentarydebating. We believe this is a slightly better explanation for the use ofthese anachronistic, somewhat perplexing terms than the other popularclaims regarding their use –collective madness for all things Anglo.

Of the two teams on the same side of the motion, one is designatedfirst proposition and the other as second proposition. The same is thecase for the opposition teams: teams are listed as first or second oppo-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 13

sition. Each team has a different role described in detail below in thesection on speaker responsibilities. Briefly, the first proposition teamsfunction in the same way as American debaters do in the constructivespeeches, establishing an argument for the motion and defending anddisputing it. The second proposition team provides an extension of theoriginal case of the first proposition team, expanding the debate to newareas of critical examination. The second opposition team refutes thisnew argument direction. The final speakers for each team in the debateare much like rebuttalists in the American format, effectively summa-rizing the winning points of the debate for their respective side.

The announcement of a motion for debate at a central gatheringsite is this format’s preferred model. Preparation time is similar toAmerican format event. The debate commences 15 or 20 minutes afterthe announcement of the motion.

There are eight speeches in the debate. Each speaker delivers a sin-gle speech. Each speech is the same duration, usually either five orseven minutes. There is no preparation time for speakers during thedebate. Each speaker, in appropriate turn, immediately follows the pre-vious speaker.

In the British format, a proposition team opens the debate and anopposition team closes the debate. Although arguments are integratedduring a debate, it is also appropriate to consider and evaluate thedebate format as if it constitutes two parallel debates, administeredconsecutively.

• First proposition, first speaker• First opposition, first speaker• First proposition, second speaker• First opposition, second speaker• Second proposition, first speaker• Second opposition, first speaker• Second proposition, second speaker• Second opposition, second speaker

Points of information play a particularly important role in this formatand are available after the first minute and before the final minute of

14


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 14

15


each of the eight speeches. Because each speaker only has a singlestand on the floor, it is important for each debater to make his or herpresence known at other portions of the debate. For example, theopening speakers will not be heard for nearly 45 minutes if they do notsuccessfully make points of information during their opponents’speeches. Likewise, the latter speakers will not play a role in establish-ing the debate’s foundational issues if they fail to advance information-al points at an early stage of the proceedings.

Managing points of information is a particular challenge in this for-mat. Because of the importance of making points, debaters are morelikely to make them in the British than the American format. In addi-tion, a speaker holding the floor faces four respondents, rather thantwo, who are able to make points of information. With less speakingtime to make winning claims, it is extraordinarily challenging to pres-ent organized, winning material and at the same time manage the dis-tractions and interruptions from the other side.

There may be one or more than one judge for the debate. In theAmerican format, each judge deliberates privately and makes a decisionabout the outcome of the debate. The judge decides a winner of thedebate in a zero-sum game: The team that does not win the debate losesthe debate. The judge also provides individual marks for each of the fourdebaters. Because there is private deliberation and voting by judges, it isnecessary to have an odd number of judges for each debate. (Thisrequirement is distinguished from the common complaint of debaters,namely, that there are a number of odd judges at each tournament.)

In the British format, judicial decision making is by consensus.This means that debates may be evaluated by an odd or even numberof critics. After their deliberation at the conclusion of the debate, thejudge or judging panel issues a single decision. The debate decisionranks the four teams in the round of debate from first to fourth place.Each judge also provides individual speaker marks for the participants.

In order to succeed, debate teams must not only defeat the twoteams on the opposing side but must also outperform the debate teamassigned to the same side of the motion. Teams do not coordinate infor-mation or otherwise work together during preparation time in thesedebates. Each team prepares individually and must show some loyalty

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 15

to the team on its side and simultaneously demonstrate superiority tothat team. Debaters are penalized for failing to support the debateteam on its side of the motion.

There is likely to be a person designated Speaker of the House(“Chair”) to announce each speaker in turn. Points of order and per-sonal privilege are not available in the format and the chair is not calledon to issue rulings on these parliamentary matters.

Parliamentary points, such as points of information, points oforder, and points of personal privilege, are discussed at length in a laterchapter. They should not be confused with speaker points, which arepoints on a fixed scale assigned by judges to individual competitors inthe debate after the debate has transpired. Parliamentary points are anintegral part of the process of debating, but their accumulation (or lackthereof) does not directly influence the outcome of a debate. For moreon how debates are decided, please reference the section on judging inthe “Skills” chapter.

Speaker responsibilities

The American format

Parliamentary debating is extemporaneous argument. Debaters arepresented with a motion for debate and have a scant 15 minutes to pre-pare. They do not read published material or argument briefs gatheredprior to preparation time during their presentations. Parliamentarydebaters speak from notes they’ve made during the preparation timeprior to or during the debate.

Each speaker position in parliamentary debate involves responsi-bilities for effective presentation, defense, and refutation of motions. Inaddition, parliamentary debaters are members of teams and someresponsibilities of speakers involve shared efforts with a colleague.

Many parliamentary debaters, particularly in the USA, havedeveloped an unfortunate habit of beginning each speech with a seriesof “thanks” to the Speaker of the House, opponents, partner, membersof the audience, furniture, and any other carbon-based life-form orinorganic matter occupying space in the debating chamber. This affec-

16


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 16

17


tation is apparently designed to instruct the assembled judges andaudience that faux civility is back in fashion. The disingenuousness andmechanistic construction of thanking conventions is almost certain tobore or rankle any listener with critical thinking skills or even thosewith slight ripples of brain wave activity. Does the speaker genuinelybelieve that the opponent, a complete stranger, is “honorable”? Is thespeaker truly “happy” that the proposition team has presented a pow-erful case for debate? Can the dermatologically challenged youth per-forming the role of erstwhile rent-a-partner be accurately described aseither “lovely” or “brilliant”?

In a similar manner, speakers end their stand on the floor with aresoundingly obvious “I/We beg to propose” or the clever rejoinder,“I/We beg to oppose.” Really? The proposition team wants the propo-sition team to win the debate and the opposition team wants the oppo-sition team to win the debate? What an unexpected development in theproceedings! Want more advice? Stop begging. It is unseemly; it doesnot resonate with persuasive authority.

Debaters, all debaters, should begin and end speeches with properintroductions and conclusions. (This matter is discussed in the chapteron performance). This section on speaker responsibilities identifies thefundamental strategic and tactical roles of speakers. Subsequent chap-ters offer more complete commentary on preparing and delivering thefull text of each speech in a debate.

Each speaker is known by one or more references to the speech shewill deliver in the debate. The opening speaker for the propositionteam is variously known as “Prime Minister,” “first prop,” or “PMC.”The latter is a code for the title of the speech itself – it literally trans-lates as “Prime Minister Constructive,” but it has come to be used as atitle for the speaker as much as a reference to the speech. The otherspeakers in the debate are known in a similar manner:

• First speaker, proposition: Prime Minister, first prop, PMC• First speaker, opposition: Leader of the Opposition, Leader, Leader

Opp, first opp, LOC• Second speaker, proposition: Member of Government, member of

gov, second prop, MG

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 17

• Second speaker, opposition: Member of Opposition, member opp,second prop, MO

• Opposition rebuttalist: Lead Opp rebuttal, LOR• Proposition rebuttalist: Prime Minister rebuttal, PMR (for some

debaters, this speaker is also known as “that lying, deceitful, manip-ulative &*%@#, always with a new argument in the final speech ofthe debate”)

First speaker, proposition (a.k.a., “prime minister

constructive”). The opening speaker in the debate makes a casefor the motion. To make a case, a speaker offers a logical proof, ademonstration that the motion is more probably true than false. Thefirst speaker for the proposition interprets the motion for debate, defin-ing any ambiguous terms or otherwise clarifying the foundation for theargument. The speaker may establish additional frameworks for thediscussion, including decision making criteria or other evaluative toolsto assist the judge.

The speaker is likely to offer a history of the debate’s subject mat-ter. Parliamentary debate topics are generated from all academic disci-plines and subject fields: economics, philosophy, cultural studies, thesciences, the law, politics, social studies, women’s studies, media stud-ies, immigration, race relations, education, human rights, nationaldefense and social welfare. It is not likely that judges have precisely thesame knowledge base as opening speakers. A history of the issue incontroversy helps debaters inform the judge in a way that might assistthe judge’s appreciation of subsequent argument claims from theproposition team.

After the opening speaker provides a clear foundation for thedebate, she presents a case, that is, a detailed exposition of argumentsin support of her interpretation of the motion. A succinct interpretationof the motion is also known as a case statement.. The case typicallyconsists of three or four main arguments with corresponding examplesor other forms of contemporary or historical evidence.

It is the obligation of the opening speaker to prove the motion. AsRaymond Alden explained in his 1900 treatise on The Art ofDebate,there is an “obligation resting upon one or other parties to a

18


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 18

19


controversy to establish by proofs a given proposition, before beingentitled to receive an answer from the other side.” This responsibilityrests, he concluded, “upon the side that would be assumed to bedefeated if no progress at all were made in the consideration of thecase.”The case will typically consist of three or four main arguments, withcorresponding examples or other forms of contemporary or historicalevidence. For example, on the motion, “This House would abolishaffirmative action,” an opening speaker might organize her main argu-ments in the following manner:

1. Affirmative action has failed to address race and gender issues over time.2. Affirmative action policies undermine community reform by assimi-lating the best and brightest of marginalized communities into main-stream culture.3. Alternatives to affirmative action are more likely to deal with theroot causes of racism and sexism.

The opening speaker would have sufficient reasoning and examples tomake concise, complete, and compelling arguments on each of theseissues. The speaker would offer a summary of her speech to demon-strate the manner in which the arguments met the burden of proof forher interpretation for the motion.

First speaker, opposition (a.k.a., “Leader of the

Opposition”). The opposition team provides “clash” in the debate.Clash, one of the fundamental principles of any kind of debate, is sim-ply what happens when arguments directly oppose each other. Thisidea is examined more in the chapter on argument theory. The opposi-tion team provides clash when they attempt to undermine the logic ofthe proposition team’s case. The opposition argues that the motion, asinterpreted by the proposition, does not hold.

The first opposition speaker uses tactics of direct and indirect refu-tation to counter the proposition team’s case. The opening speaker forthe opposition may challenge the definition of the motion or the propo-sition’s decision framework of the debate. (See the chapter on topic

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 19

interpretation for more on arguing theses issues). The first oppositionspeaker may also challenge the main arguments of the proposition’s case.

Refuting the main points of the case, that is, disputing the argu-ment analysis or factual claims of the opening speaker, is called directrefutation. The opening speaker for the opposition should criticallyevaluate the first proposition speaker’s arguments, pointing out incon-sistencies, trivialities, logic gaps, argument fallacies, improper causalchains and exaggerated claims. This speaker might also offer countersto the examples presented in the proposition case.

The opposition could also promote clash with the proposition casethrough indirect argumentation. Indirect argumentation involvesissues that are not formally included in the proposition team case (i.e.,the issues not mentioned in the opening speech by the first propositionspeaker) but are, nonetheless, intimately related to consideration of thematter. These material arguments, including disadvantages, counter-plans and critiques, are discussed in detail in subsequent chapters.

The optimal opposition strategy in the opening speech is to presentsome combination of direct and indirect refutation, carefully selectingfrom among all available opposition arguments the more salient andpotentially effective ones for presentation in the debate.

The opposition is not obliged to disagree with every argument ofthe proposition team's case. It is wearying and ineffectual to engage inthis sort of reactionary gainsaying of each of the proposition’s mainarguments. It may be, in fact, to the advantage of the opposition toagree with a proposition argument. Agreement may focus the discus-sion on those points in genuine controversy or may support a differentand more powerful position for the opposition team.

Opposition debaters, particularly in the opening speech, should atleast account for all the main arguments of the proposition case. Theopening opposition speaker should do this in a forthright and formalmanner, making it apparent to the judge that all major elements of theproposition case have been addressed. By this, we mean that the firstopposition speaker should say something about each of the majorissues of the case, either by identifying points of agreement and relo-cating the core issues of the debate to other matters or by directly orindirectly disputing the proposition claims.

20


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 20

21


This approach does not necessarily limit the options of the opposi-tion speaker, nor does it involve a mechanical rejoinder to each of theproposition team’s major issues. It is possible for the opening opposi-tion speaker to identify two or three main lines of argument, for exam-ple, one to address the issues of the case (direct refutation) and twonew initiatives that could undermine the proposition position in thedebate but, at the same time, are not ideas articulated in the openingspeech (indirect refutation). The opposition speaker might then let thejudge know that these three issues are of greater import than the othermatters in the opening speech, i.e., the other major arguments for theproposition team are trivial distractions and not fundamental to a prop-er evaluation of the motion.

Second speaker, proposition (a.k.a., “Member of

Government”). The second constructive speech for the proposi-tion team is that team’s last opportunity to introduce new argumentsand issues. The only stand on the floor for the proposition, after thisconstructive speech, is the final rebuttal speech in the debate. This is aparticularly important speech for the proposition, as it immediatelyprecedes two consecutive opposition speeches – the second oppositionconstructive speech (or “Member of the Opposition” speech) and theopposition rebuttal speech (or “Leader of the Opposition rebuttal.”)

The opposition speeches give that side of the debate 12 consecutiveminutes to advance arguments. The second proposition speaker mustconvincingly prove her side’s case to withstand the serious forthcom-ing opposition assault.

The second speaker for the proposition refutes all the major objec-tions to the case as offered by the opening speaker for the opposition.In addition, this speaker reestablishes the principles of the case, initial-ly presented by her colleague in the first proposition speech. In doingso, she might supplement her colleague’s reasoning, offer additionalexamples or otherwise amplify the opening presentation.

Second speaker, opposition (a.k.a., “Member of

Opposition”). This is the final constructive speech in the debate forthe opposition team. No new arguments or issues may be introduced

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 21

after this speech by the side opposing the motion. The second speaker for the opposition has several options for her

speech. She may continue the objections of the first opposition speak-er to the proposition team’s case; present new arguments against theproposition team (these arguments may be either direct or indirectrefutation); defend and expand the opposition's counterplan, disad-vantages, critiques and other indirect argumentation if they have beenpresented; and evaluate inconsistencies between the arguments of thefirst and second proposition speakers.

Although the speech is known as a constructive speech and aproposition team may make points of information during “unprotect-ed” speaking time, debaters should be cautious about presenting infor-mation as if the second opposition speech was a constructive speech. Itshould function as an opposition rebuttal speech.

The second opposition speaker, like any constructive speaker inthe debate, may introduce new arguments, but this is an unwise tacticbecause this speaker will be immediately followed by the opposition’slast speech in the debate, its sole rebuttal speech. If the second opposi-tion speaker introduces new arguments into the debate, the oppositionrebuttalist will be able to repeat that information in her speech but willnot be able to expand or amplify the points. There is no foundation todo so as the proposition team has not yet had an opportunity to disputeany of the claims from the second opposition constructive speaker.

In fact, the only opportunity for the proposition team to answerthese issues is in their next stand on the floor, the proposition rebuttal,which also happens to be the last speech in the debate. This means thatany positions advanced by the second speaker of the opposition are,essentially, “naked” arguments. The opposition debaters are unable toexplain, defend, or extend the arguments. Virtually any argument inthe proposition rebuttal will defeat these newly entered issues and aclever proposition speaker might try to capture new arguments or turnthem to her advantage, employing them as winning strategies for theher side. Paradoxically, new arguments presented in the second oppo-sition speech might be the key to victory for the proposition.

It is vital to expand the arguments from the first opposition speak-er. It is equally important to answer or account for the key issues of the

22


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 22

23


second proposition speaker. The opposition team, in their secondspeech, should be careful about introducing new arguments or unnec-essarily expanding arguments in the debate.

If the second opposition speech functions as a rebuttal, then theopposition offers an integrated front of 12 minutes of argumentation,an effective tactic to overwhelm a final proposition rebuttalist’s five-minute speech. The second opposition speaker should effectively sum-marize issues, explaining carefully the impact of each argument (i.e.,the manner in which the argument plays a decisive role in the outcomeof the debate). Opposition speakers should share rebuttal responsibil-ities, with each speaker managing a section of the debate.

Opposition rebuttalist (a.k.a., “leader of the oppo-

sition rebuttal”). This part of the debate is the summary speechfor the opposition team, the last opportunity this side will have toexplain winning arguments. Rebuttals are an opportunity to contrastthe main lines of argument of the proposition and opposition. Thespeaker should select from among the issues of the debate. It is not pos-sible to cover every argument in the debate. There are likely to be toomany argument points from the constructive speeches in the debate,and, to compound difficulties, the rebuttalist has approximately one-half the allotted time of the constructive speakers. (The oppositionrebuttalist has four minutes for the speech, in contrast to the proposi-tion constructive speakers who have, respectively, seven- and eight-minute speeches.)

The opposition rebuttal speaker should focus attention on thesalient two to four major issues that might tip the debate to the oppo-sition side. The opposition should select more than one issue. Multiple,independent winning arguments may increase the probability that theopposition will succeed in the debate.

These arguments must have a foundation in the constructive speech-es. New arguments may not be introduced in the opposition rebuttal.The opposition rebuttalist should carry through important issues fromher opening speech in the debate, as well as her partner’s constructivespeech. The speaker should be cautious to avoid rote repetition of thesecond opposition speech. Too many opposition rebuttalists merely

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 23

repeat the issues from their partner’s speech Bad idea. Simple repetitionis hardly the most effective explanatory, argumentative or persuasivepresentation. Simple repetition is hardly the most effective explanatory,argumentative or persuasive presentation. Simple repetition is hardly themost effective explanatory, argumentative or persuasive presentation.(That last bit should just about settle the matter.)

Rebuttal repetition does not advance the opposition’s agenda in thedebate. It retards it. It suspends it for four minutes. It also provides theproposition rebuttalist with time to prepare her speech. The proposi-tion speaker has already heard the opposition’s potentially winningarguments in the final opposition constructive speech. There is no rea-son for her to listen to the issues again. By repeating the arguments inthe opposition rebuttal, the opposition merely sets free the propositionrebuttalist. There is no reason to pay attention to the opposition rebut-tal speaker. She is on to more important tasks. With four minutes tocraft her five-minute speech, the final rebuttalist is almost certain tooffer effective rejoinders to the opposition’s claims. Paradoxically, theconventional opposition rebuttal, a restatement of the issues of the sec-ond opposition speaker, works best for the opposing side.

Proposition rebuttalist (a.k.a., “prime minister

rebuttal”). The proposition has the final speech in the debate. Thisspeech should effectively summarize the entire debate. The propositionrebuttalist has similar goals as the final opposition speaker. The finalrebuttalist should extend the arguments from the constructive speech-es, taking care to answer the major arguments from the oppositionspeakers, particularly the final opposition stand on the floor. Theproposition rebuttalist should offer multiple, independent proofs of themotion to increase the probability that any single idea will be sufficientfor a victory.

For this speaker, there may be an exception to the “no new argu-ments in the rebuttal” rule. The proposition rebuttalist is entitled toanswer new arguments made in the second opposition constructivespeech, because the final rebuttal is the first opportunity in the debatethat the proposition team has to refute these issues. Although theanswers to the new arguments of the second opposition speaker may

24


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 24

25


appear to be “new,” they are not new arguments in the debate. Theyhave their foundation in a constructive speech.

The British Format

There are subtle and dramatic differences in speaker roles between theAmerican and British debate formats. Many of the roles, particularlyfor speakers opening and closing the debate, are nearly identical tospeaker roles in the American form. As in the American format, afterthe opening proposition case, British format debaters advance newissues and challenge the ideas of their opponents.

First speaker, first proposition. The first speaker in theBritish debate format has a nearly identical role to the first speaker forthe proposition in the American format. The speaker interprets themotion and makes a convincing case for it. The case should provideopportunities for serious debate and for argument extension. (See therole of the first speaker, second proposition, above.)

First speaker, first opposition. Same as the first speaker,opposition, in the American format.

Second speaker, first proposition. This is extraordinari-ly similar to the second speaker, proposition, in the American format.This speaker should amplify the arguments of her partner and initiateat least one new argument in the debate.

Second speaker, first opposition. Same as the secondspeaker, opposition, in the American format. This speaker shouldamplify the arguments of her partner and initiate at least one new argu-ment in the debate.

First speaker, second proposition. At last, a serious point ofdeparture between the British and American formats. The second propo-sition team’s first speaker must establish an extension of the case present-ed by the first proposition team’s opening speaker. The case extension

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 25

may not simply repeat the ideas of the opening speaker of the debate, normay the speaker offer yet another example for the same argument. Whileshowing loyalty to the opening proposition team, the first speaker of thesecond proposition team must subtly shift the discussion to new area ofinvestigation or amplify an opening team’s symbols, themes or underlyingassumptions. This speaker then follows the form of the opening speaker,establishing a case for modifying the motion. The case includes three orfour main lines of argument constituting a logical proof for the secondproposition team’s interpretation of the motion.

Because the second proposition team shares a side of the motionwith the first proposition team, it is important for the second team tooffer a position that is consistent with the initial argument claims. Todo otherwise, that is, to undermine the arguments of the openingproposition team, is to figuratively stab colleagues in the back. (At leastthe authors hope that it is only figurative knife play.) When this under-mining occurs, the second proposition team is said to “knife” the firstteam. “Knifing” is almost always held against a second propositionteam. It is so disfavored by judges that it is difficult for a team engag-ing in the practice to receive a rank higher than fourth place. Considerthat parliamentary debate’s roots lie in governing bodies, which fre-quently involve coalition governments of more than one party. Whenone party rejects the claims of their supposed partner, they are in effectdisbanding the coalition.

First speaker, second opposition. Same as the first speak-er, opposition, in the American format. This speaker must rebut thecase presented by the second proposition team’s first speaker.

Second speaker, second proposition This speech is verymuch like a rebuttal in the American format. The speaker summarizes thedebate, making the necessary points for a winning conclusion for her team.

Second speaker, second opposition. Same as the secondspeaker, opposition, in the American format, or second speaker, propo-sition, in the British format.

26


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 26

27


Concluding Thoughts on Formats

Although there are substantial differences between parliamentary debateformats, the major styles are quite similar in substance. The process ofargumentation and refutation to determine winners and losers of debatesvaries little from debate to debate. The proposition team will, invariably,make a case for the topic. The opposition team will refute or otherwiseundermine the proposition team’s case. As the debate progresses, bothteams will develop lines of argument to prove why their side wins thedebate. At the end, both sides have a chance to summarize their argu-ments and refute the major issues raised by their opponents. Finally, thejudge or judges will render a decision about the debate, assigning eitherranks or a winner and a loser. They will assign speaker points on a fixedscale to individual debaters. After these decisions are made, the judgewill offer oral and written critiques of the debate.

Regardless of the specific format used for debate, good debaterequires ethical practice. We advise you to consider the seriousness ofthe event when you practice debate. Do not, through your behavior orarguments, make the event a joke. This is a waste of money and timefor your organization and for your opponents and critics.

As a debater, critic, or trainer, you shoulder an obligation to knowand follow the policies of tournaments and leagues in which you par-ticipate. At tournaments, the rules often dictate the format and otherprocedures, including judge behavior. At the league level, policies usu-ally regulate behavior, including harassing behavior, between debatersand other tournament participants. In the USA, the NationalParliamentary Debate Association has the following harassment poli-cies in their by-laws (updated July 2001):

“Academic debate provides a forum for the expression, criticism,and discussion (and for the tolerance) of a wide range of opinions.Participants are encouraged to develop skills in reasoned and sup-ported argument while avoiding the pitfalls of faulty argument.Academic debate does not provide a license for demeaning actions

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 27

and it does not tolerate sexual harassment. Any participant whosuffers discrimination or harassment as part of the activity isdenied the guarantee of an equal opportunity to work, learn, andgrow in the area of academic debate and may be harmed in mind,body, and performance.”

“Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination and consists ofverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, imposed on the basis ofsex, that has the effect of denying or limiting one’s right to participatein the activity, or creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive environ-ment that places the victim in an untenable situation and/or dimin-ishes the victim’s opportunity to participate fairly. Sexual conduct canbecome discriminatory and harassing when the nature of the interac-tion is unwelcome, or when a pattern of behavior that is offensive toa “reasonable woman” (or man, as the case may be) exists. These def-initions, which comply with the EEOC and other legal definitions,rely strongly on the perceptions of the complainant and it is impor-tant to recognize that differences in social position between the com-plainant and the accused can compound the degree of threat orpotential harm perceived in a situation.”

It is important that leagues work to develop policies regarding harass-ment and other exclusionary behaviors that might occur at tourna-ments or other league events. As you become involved in debate, youshould investigate the relevant policies of your league to ensure thatyour behavior is in compliance with the norms of the organizations inwhich you participate. Regardless of policies and procedures, howev-er, debaters, trainers, and judges have an obligation to behave in a civiland respectful manner towards other participants in the activity.

In the interest of pursuing open debate and discussion, all partici-pants must respect each other and create an environment free of intim-idation. All debate formats create space for dynamic, engaged, andinformed discussion. One of the only major variables to change fromdebate to debate in parliamentary debating is the topic. Teams shouldexpect to debate a different topic in each debate. In the next chapter,we discuss the types of topics and explain the process of topic analysisthat debaters should employ.

28


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 28

29

CHAPTER 2:

TOPICS AND TOPIC

INTERPRETATION

Parliamentary debates are usually extemporaneous events, withthe announcement of a motion for debate approximately 15minutes prior to each debate. It is also possible to have set top-

ics for debating. Some debate tournaments announce topics hours orweeks in advance of a competition. Specialized debate events, forexample, a public debate in a parliamentary format conducted betweentwo schools or on the Internet, may have its topics announced inadvance, usually to attract an audience.

Most motions begin with the phrase, “This House would…” or“This House believes…” or “This House should…” The expression“This House” refers to the decision makers in a deliberative parliament.In most cases, the decision maker is the judge or panel of judges for thedebate. Proposition debaters will advance a case that is designed toconvince the decision makers that the motion is more likely to be truethan false. If the decision makers agree with the proposition team, themotion is affirmed. This agreement demonstrates that the “House”supports the ideas expressed by the proposition team. In other circum-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 29

stances, the “House” includes the audience, as a substitute for or inaddition to designated judges. It may be the case that the first proposi-tion speaker interprets “This House” for the purpose of advancing herarguments in the debate, providing an altogether different understand-ing of the phrase.

Topics are fact statements, policy or value comparisons or nationalor international policy directives. The proposition in a parliamentarydebate is also known as the topic, resolution, or motion. Motions arecategorized by their language, and fall into several loose categories.

In one typology, motions are identified as resolutions of fact, valueand policy. A resolution of fact proposes a factual claim that is subse-quently subject to debate:

• This House believes that the economy of the USA is recovering fromrecession.

• Jury nullification in drug trials is an increasingly serious problem.

A resolution of value compares value claims or postulates an expres-sion of a “good” that is subject to debate:

• It is appropriate to sacrifice freedom to promote security.• This House prefers the local to the global

A policy resolution calls for an action to be taken.

• The United Nations should prosecute international terrorists.• The federal government of the USA should increase regulation of

industries in its borders to substantially reduce their productionand/or emission of environmental pollutants.

Although the topic’s language might tip participants off as to the typeof motion proposed for debate, the act of correctly categorizing themotion as a fact, value, or policy motion has little to do with thedebate’s actual argumentation. After all, debate argumentationincludes elements of fact, value, and policy. Debaters inevitably offerexpressions of the “good.” (That is the reason debaters are convinced

30


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 30

31

TOPICS AND TOPIC INTERPRETATION

that others will listen to them. Debaters advocate sound or favorableideas, proper opinions, expressions of the good and legitimate valueclaims, and an audience is subsequently willing to engage the speaker.)

Debaters understand value claims in the context of human and insti-tutional behaviors (i.e., policy). It is nearly impossible to intelligently dis-cuss “values” in the abstract. (As a thought-experiment, try to exploreany value claim – life, liberty, equality, justice, privacy, aesthetics – with-out due consideration of government, corporate or personal behavior.)For example, an advocate for liberty does not necessarily support thevalue of liberty in every conceivable context. A speaker defending thevalue of liberty is unlikely to support the freedom of individuals to kill orsteal. Few debaters would argue for a liberty interest to sexually exploitchildren or marry neighbors’ pets. Contextual understanding, the appre-ciation of specific individual or institutional policy choices, is necessaryto give meaning to the concept of liberty.

Of course, debaters use factual material in all their debates. Inother words, fact, value and policy issues are all available to debaterson each fact, value or policy resolution. It is, in fact, largely impossibleto separate issues of fact, value, and policy. In a debate, you cannotreally discuss values in the abstract. When confronted with a topicsuch as “This House opposes discrimination against minorities,” aproposition team must do more than merely argue that discriminationin the abstract is bad. Pragmatically, this argument puts them in a weakposition. To oppose this sort of case for the motion, the opposition teamwould merely have to provide some examples of cases in which it isappropriate to pursue a policy of limited discrimination. The opposi-tion could, for example, argue that discriminatory affirmative action orthe imposition of representative quotas achieves important benefits inthe long-term pursuit of equal representation and opportunity.

It is important to remember that parliamentary debate comes fromroots in the processes of governmental and other decision-making bod-ies. In parliamentary convocations worldwide, advocates are called onto do more than simply argue that discrimination (or inflation, or toxicwaste) is bad in the abstract. They are expected to offer a proposal todeal with existing situations of concern. This does not mean that allproposition teams are therefore expected to offer a specific plan for

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 31

action. Proposition teams must offer specific examples of the problemidentified in the motion, but may refrain from offering a plan per se.

In addition to resolutions of fact, value and policy, resolutions areunderstood as open or closed. A closed motion is sometimes called astraight resolution. An open motion is also known as a linkable reso-lution. A closed or straight resolution is meant to be taken literally. Forexample, on the motion, “This House would send peacekeeping troopsto the Middle East,” it is expected that the proposition team wouldoffer a relatively conservative interpretation of the motion, establishingreasons for military force intervention in the nations bordering theeastern Mediterranean Sea.

An open or linkable motion is more abstract. “Bury it.” “Thereshould be a new song for America.” “Don’t fear the reaper.” The propo-sition team may define the terms of these open or linkable motions inmost any way they choose, generally linking the abstract motion to apublic policy controversy. For example, a defense of the topic “Bury it”might have the proposition team call for an end to national missiledefense plans in the USA, “burying” the plan for the defense program forreasons of technical and political unfeasibility. The link between themotion and case can be tenuous, although some leagues and tournamentsinsist upon a closer relationship between the two, even for open motions.

There are some motions that can be characterized as relativelyopen or relatively closed. These motions provide for a range of propo-sition cases within a tightly constrained range of options. For example,on the motion “The Supreme Court should overturn the decision,” theproposition team might argue for the overturn of any one of a numberof decisions rendered by the court. A closed motion will normally dic-tate the subject matter for the debate, if not all of the specifics thatcould be part of the proposition team’s case. For example, the motion“NATO should admit Russia as a member state” is a closed motion.The proposition team has some leeway to interpret the motion, insofaras they may suggest a particular plan for admitting Russia (soonerrather than later, phasing in membership, limiting influence, etc.). Arelatively closed motion, on the other hand, will normally dictate arange or genre of subject matter for the proposition team’s case.

There are other somewhat novel or experimental forms of motions.

32


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 32

33


There are motions that propose a general area of investigation, forexample, “Africa” or “Olympic Games.” Any reasonable idea generat-ed from this kind of topic area could serve as a constructive interpre-tation of the motion and a foundation for debate. This form of motiondesign provides the proposition team with considerable interpretiveliberty. The opposition might not be able to successfully anticipateeither the issues for the debate or the direction of any suggestedreform. (Will the proposition advocate more engagement with one ormore African nations? Or will they suggest that nations withdraw sup-port for national and sub-national groups engaging in human rightsviolations?) This motion form might be used in those circumstances inwhich a tournament director has determined that there is a decidedbias for the opposition in the outcomes of debates on more specificallyworded resolutions. The director might then use a focused but moreambiguous motion to provide an equal opportunity for the propositionside to participate in fair contests.

Another motion is the scenario. This motion offers an extended,detailed explanation of a crisis, condition, or bargaining position.Rather than a motion as a traditional single, simple, declarative sen-tence, the scenario may use one or several paragraphs to describe,through a series of chronological events, logical claims, or personalnarratives, events that might constitute the subject for debate. Scenarioconstruction necessarily limits substantive debating to the specificsdesigned by the tournament host. This may be appropriate as an aca-demic exercise, a public event, or conference project, particularly forpresentations to a specialized audience interested in the finely detaileddescriptions of a case study. One example of a case study propositionis this one, used at a parliamentary tournament in the USA:

Case Scenario: A doctor has just learned that the patient she istreating will probably not live beyond the next day. The patientknows he is terminal, but thinks he has at least another few weeksto live and has hope that there is a slim chance to pull through.Family members are already near by. The doctor's dilemma iswhether to reveal the truth about patient's anticipated time ofdeath. The proposition team must support the statement “the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 33

physician must make a full and complete disclosure to the patientand his family.”

This kind of case study or scenario for debate may be an interestingand relevant exercise for conference debates or other kinds of publicevents; however, its use in intervarsity tournament competition can beproblematic. Longer topics can inadvertently advantage the oppositionteam by providing more grist for opposition arguments, while bindingthe proposition team to a relatively narrower area to defend. In theexample above, the opposition team could persuasively contest thephrase “and his family,” arguing that the doctor only has a responsibil-ity to the patient, and that the patient (rather than the physician)should decide whether and how to inform the family.

The opening speaker of the debate is responsible for interpretingthe motion for debate. The speaker typically defines key terms for thepurpose of clarifying the motion and establishing an understanding ofthe controversy for debate. On the motion, “This House would estab-lish a system of national health insurance in the USA,” the speakermight define “system of national health insurance.” There are manypossible systems of national health insurance. Without a clear defini-tion by the proposition team, how would the opposition know whichsystem to consider? Is the proposition discussing an expansion of theMedicare system? A requirement that all employers pay for healthinsurance for workers? A new, federally administered national healthprogram? Debate cannot proceed in a meaningful way until thesequestions are adequately answered.

There are, however, other methods to analyze a motion. Debatersshould consider the following interpretive models. Examples followeach of the descriptions of interpretative models of several motions,with approximately the same amount of time devoted to the issues thatone ought to use in a competitive debate. In addition to the argumentsregarding the motion itself, the speaker should make sure to define anytechnical or difficult term in the motion and note that any issues notunderstood in the analysis of the proposition will be made clear “in the

34


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 34

35


case proper.” It is inevitable that additional clarifications of the motionthroughout an opening proposition speech will assist an understandingof the proposition team’s motion.

A literal model of interpretation

A literal interpretation is a conventional reading of a motion that pre-sumes (1) a commonly held and exclusive understanding of the motion;(2) there is no metaphorical understanding of the motion; and (3) it ispossible to understand the motion objectively, that is, the statement isindependent of any interpretation or contextual understanding. (Thisis surely an ironic moment – a definition of literal meaning. Is there noliteral meaning for literal meaning?)

In the example of the proposition, “This House would establish asystem of national health insurance in the USA,” a literal interpretationwould presume a single available interpretation. A debater might intro-duce the interpretation in this way:

“We are here to debate the motion, ‘This House would establish asystem of national health insurance in the USA.’ It is evident thatthis resolution is discussing the ongoing controversy of a federal,single-payer system to provide universal health care coverage forall citizens and residents in the United States of America. That isthe basis for today’s debate.”

A parametric model

This method of interpretation presumes that literalism is problematic.Those debaters employing this interpretive method allege to accountfor the difficulties with literalism. They claim to appreciate that thereis no singular and exclusive interpretation for a motion. They admit toa range or set of possible interpretations for any given motion. Therange of interpretations is always in flux and somewhat arbitrary.There are no clear parameters on the set, although the interpretingteam will admit to some parameters.

On the motion, “This House opposes the death penalty,” a team

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 35

using a parametric set or a model might acknowledge a number of rea-sonable interpretations:

• The proposition might call for an end to the administration of capitalpunishment, claiming that the death penalty, execution for special cir-cumstances crimes and capital punishment are one and the same.

• The proposition might argue for the abolition of factory farms, argu-ing that modern farming techniques are certainly a death sentence forany animal unfortunate enough to be bred for slaughter.

• The proposition team could advance the idea that animal testing inresearch and development for the cosmetics industry, fatal to all test-ed animals, ought to be eliminated.

• The team interpreting the motion might abolish the estate tax, a fed-erally imposed tax on the estate of a deceased person, often describedas a “death penalty.”

Likewise, on the motion “This House would establish a system ofnational health insurance in the USA” a proposition speaker mightintroduce the interpretation in the following way:

“The motion before the House is to ‘establish a system of nationalhealth insurance in the USA.’ There are a number of reasonablenational health insurance proposals that have been offered by gov-ernment officials and public health experts. The most comprehensiveand effective plan is the call for full expansion of the Medicare pro-gram, a position that we will endorse in today’s debate.”

The extended analogy

In this case, the debater interpreting the motion argues that the motion maybe drawn, by analogy, to correspond to a target statement. The latter state-ment is the proposition speaker’s interpretation of the motion for debate.On the motion, “This House would fight the power,” an opening speakerfor the proposition might offer a case to stop or resist (fight) the bombingcampaign in Afghanistan (the power). In interpreting by analogy, a propo-sition team should adhere to the semantic structure, grammar and syntax of

36


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 36

37


the original statement when constructing the target interpretation.

• On the motion “This House would establish a system of nationalhealth insurance in the USA,” a proposition speaker might draw thefollowing analogy:

“The motion before the House is to ‘establish a system of nationalhealth insurance in the USA.’ This motion represents the value ofpayments for the environmental or general health needs of citi-zens. Individuals are in the best position to determine the qualityof their lives. As such, the motion is understood as a call for aguaranteed annual income for citizens and residents in theUSA.”

Metaphor

Metaphors are the basis of much communication in everyday life as well asin parliamentary debates. Metaphors express a relation in which one thingstands for another (“people as plants,” “life is a journey,” “death is a jour-ney”). In the interpretation of a motion, the opening speaker for the propo-sition would present a metaphoric understanding of the motion simply byhaving a case statement represent the language of the motion. The limitedrestrictions previously noted on extended analogy (consistency with num-ber, semantic structure, etc.) are unlikely to apply.

• On the motion “Don’t fear the reaper,” a proposition speaker mightargue for a policy of death education in schools. The speaker wouldsay that to reject fear, we must institutionalize an educational policy.The relation with death comes from the speaker’s connection of deathand a reaper. A reaper is not an objectively accurate understanding ofdeath. That fact is largely irrelevant to this sort of interpretation.

• On the motion “This House would establish a system of nationalhealth insurance in the USA” a proposition speaker might introducethe interpretation in the following way: “The motion is a metaphor forlife’s caring journey. Consequently, we will argue that society shouldbetter serve the needs of the elderly.”

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 37

To be sure, there are problems with each interpretive method since it ispossible to argue the merits of any of them. If one did not know this fromthe field of literary interpretation, surely he or she would understand itfrom the world of debate. Everything is up for grabs in debate. All ideasare subject to challenge. It is extraordinarily doubtful that literalismexists, and, if it does, it would seem to be of limited application. Is it thecase, for example, that debaters share the knowledge base, worldview,identity and cultural history to have a singular and exclusive understand-ing of the terms of a motion? Literal understandings are more likely to bethe ego projections of the judge or the opposing side in a debate. It isnothing other than one or more of those participants advancing their ownknowledge base about a topic, subsequently reaching the conclusion thattheir understanding or interpretation of the motion is inevitably “intu-itive,” “conservative,” or “better.” (This suggests an insecurity that is bet-ter managed with years of intensive petting zoo therapy or “Up withPeople” counseling than participation in debating contests.)

Parametric interpretations are nothing other than samples of liter-alism – parametrics is literalism writ larger and softer (perhaps “flab-bier” is the more accurate description). It is literalism + n, where thevalue of n is any non-zero number of interpretations. How any of thissets parameters in a reasonable, non-arbitrary manner has yet to beexplained by its fans. The hallmark of the model is its capriciousness.Its advocates claim that it provides a predictable set of issues fordebate. There is little way of knowing, however, in which direction theparameters are to be set or what they might potentially include orexclude. It is the three-card monte of interpretations, changing on thefly, scamming those earnestly playing along.

Extended analogies and metaphorical interpretations might pro-vide too little focus for the debate. They seem to moot the point of hav-ing a topic for parliamentary debates. If the proposition only needs tosubstitute a target statement, any target statement, for the motion, andmay do so by extended analogy or metaphor, then the topic itself islargely irrelevant. The proposition team will not need to adhere to anyof the motion’s language. They are free to abandon the motion and cre-ate their own debate resolution.

Proposition teams should take care to select the appropriate inter-

38


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 38

39


pretive model in each debate. The language of the topic and the poten-tial proposition case will strongly influence the opening speaker’schoice of interpretation.

Opposition teams, particularly in the USA, are likely to argue thatproposition teams have presented a case that is at odds with the motionfor debate. This situation rarely occurs outside of the USA. In Britishdebating, for example, opposition teams that challenge the propositionteam’s interpretation of the topic may be booed or otherwise heckled.On occasion, it is acceptable for debaters to disagree with the defini-tion or interpretation of a motion, but it happens very infrequently. Italso occurs only in circumstances in which the initial interpretation bythe opening proposition speaker so violates principles of common sensethat others in the debate must correct the interpretation in order tohave a debate. Unless there is an egregious error by an opening propo-sition speaker, the other teams in the debate are expected to debate themotion as interpreted by the first proposition team. Deviations willlikely receive a hostile reception from judges.

In those circumstances in which American parliamentary teamsargue that the proposition team’s case is at odds with the motion fordebate, they are usually making a rather different claim. They are notactually suggesting that the proposition’s case is inconsistent with themotion for debate. To the contrary, they are quite likely to ignoreentirely the proposition team’s interpretation of the motion for debate.

The opposition does not usually argue that the proposition team’sinterpretation is wrong or unreasonable, but that is not sufficientlyright. The opposition team typically argues that there is another, andbetter, interpretation of the motion. They introduce the other interpre-tation and explain that it should be the basis for debate. The oppositionmight explain that their interpretation is more predictable, intuitive, orfair to all parties. The opposition team might offer one or more reasonswhy their version of the topic ought to serve as the interpretation of themotion for the debate. The opposition side concludes this topicalityargument (an argument about the viability of the proposition case onthe announced topic) by establishing that when the proposition teamfails to offer a case that successfully matches the opposition interpreta-tion of the topic, and the opposition interpretation is better than that of

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 39

the proposition team, the proposition has not provided a legitimateinterpretation of the topic and should lose the debate.

There are problems with this approach. The opposition merelyoffers a different interpretation of the motion. But there are alwaysmany possible interpretations of a given motion. The point of a fairdebate is to permit the proposition team to select the more salient anddefensible interpretations from among the potential ones. Oppositioninterpretation of the motion undermines this fundamental principle ofequitable debating. Further, opposition interpretation of the motion isa way for the opposition team to duck the topic for debating. This isnever a good way for either side to approach the debate. Just as theproposition team should not attempt to duck the subject matter of themotion, so too should the opposition team endeavor to confront theproposition team’s case head-on.

One other problem with topicality arguments is the manner in whichthey seem to be at odds with lived experience about textual interpretation.The claims made for the argument include the following: (1) individualsshare an understanding of the language, such that word use is commonand universal; (2) the failure to abide with syntactic construction andgrammar rules inhibits meaning; and (3) words are not understood con-textually but have an objective meaning prior to their use. These pointsare routinely made or function as the subtext of topicality argumentswithout considering that these arguments represent controversial state-ments in the fields of philosophy of language, semantics, semiology, lin-guistics and communications. There is also an entire body of literaturethat repudiates the claims that language must be commonly and objec-tively understood and used according to fairly rigid grammatical princi-ples in order to produce meaning. We call it poetry.

The proposition team answers a topicality argument according to thefollowing guidelines:

• They may argue that the opposition team has failed to advance a the-oretically sound position in the debate. The claim by the oppositionthat the debate ought to be about an “other” issue than that proposedby the proposition team seems fit here. Why should the opposition

40


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 40

41


select the basis for debate? From where is the authority for an oppo-sition interpretation of the motion? The opposition team does nothave to defend the motion during the debate. The proposition hasthat duty. The proposition team has legitimate authority to define themotion because it has the burden of proof for it. The opposition teamdoes not. The proposition may investigate the legitimacy of the theo-ry supporting the opposition’s topicality argument.

• The proposition team might argue against the construction of thetopicality argument itself. In this way, the proposition speakerswould consider the internal consistency of the argument, its rela-tion to other opposition positions in the debate, the analytical orcausal reasoning supporting the argument, or the examples prof-fered to support the argument. In other words, the propositionteam would debate the issue in the same way they would considerany other argument in the debate.

• The proposition team’s speakers might suggest reasons that theirinterpretation of the motion is consistent with the arguments offeredby the opposition. These reasons would demonstrate that the inter-pretations are complementary, rather than contrary. It would showthat the opposition position on the topic for debate is not a reason toreject the proposition interpretation.

• Finally, the proposition might establish some “affirmative” arguments(also known as “offensive” arguments, that is, an argument thatestablishes a winning position for its proponent. It does not mean aninsulting or crude argument.). These arguments might include justi-fications for their particular interpretation of the motion. The propo-sition team would try to prove that to endorse the interpretation sug-gested by the opposition team would do violence or commit otherserious harm.

For example, on the motion, “This House would have a new song forAmerica,” the proposition team might argue for significantly expandedaffirmative action programs to redress race and gender inequality bybusiness. The opposition could introduce a topicality argument, offer-ing the claim that affirmative action is not a “new song for America,”as affirmative action programs have been in place for many years. The

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 41

proposition team might refute this statement, claiming that this oppo-sition stance expresses the same rhetorical approach traditionally usedto exclude women and people of color from business. In other words,they call for the suspension of discussion on the needs of socially mar-ginalized people for a different or other agenda, the latter set by thoseprivileged few (in this case, the opposition team and its differing inter-pretation of the motion.).

The de facto silencing of the advocates of dramatically expandedand substantially different affirmative action programs (the proposi-tion team) is the tactic of those favoring business-as-usual approachesto race, gender and human relations. The opposition team, like thoseinterested in further marginalizing socially alienated populations,always have another agenda to discuss, as they are endlessly boredwith the plight of people unlike themselves. The proposition teammight be able to argue that the topicality argument is a reflection of thevery problem they are attempting to both reveal and ameliorate.According to the proposition team, the topicality argument is, there-fore, not an effective reply to their opening speech. To the contrary, itproduces marginalizing behavior that the proposition has proven oughtto be disputed.

In addition, the opposition has an enormous conflict of interestwhen it interprets the debate motion. The opposition team opposes themotion in the debate and has every reason to provide a bankrupt oreasily defeated interpretation. This tactic simply makes the debate eas-ier for them. The debate then becomes a rigged game. The oppositionside sets the agenda for the proposition and gets to argue against it.This situation would be similar to a state prosecutor autonomously set-ting the rules of procedure and evidence for a criminal trial and subse-quently arguing the case. Of course, if the opposition speaker sets theagenda for the debate by interpreting the motion is her speech, thedebate technically begins with the first opposition constructive speech.It is another rigged game. The proposition will have lost a constructivespeech and must now prepare to debate against the first and secondopposition constructive speakers.

If all this were not enough, the underlying assumption of much topi-cality argument is that the opposition side in the debate requires prepa-

42


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 42

43


ration time to effectively engage the proposition team’s case. To the oppo-sition, this requirement means they must have an idea about the directionor substance of the proposition case during the fifteen-minute preparationtime period prior to the debate. Opposition teams seem to suggest thatthey are disenfranchised if the proposition presents a case they have notadequately anticipated during the preparation time period.

Preparation time is primarily for the proposition and it is not nec-essarily for the opposition team. The proposition team must make aconvincing case for debate. This is a challenging enterprise. It is moredifficult to build than to destroy. The proposition must provide consis-tent, unifying principles for its case. It is more likely than not that theproposition team will have to maintain several different arguments tomaintain its logical proof of the case. The opposition team will not needto endorse unifying or terribly consistent positions to prevail. In fact,many opposition teams win debates because they are able to identifyand support a single powerful argument against their debate foes.

The proposition team quite clearly and desperately requires prepa-ration before the debate begins. The first speaker for the opposition,like the second speakers for the proposition and opposition, can makedo without preparation time. If that is the case, there is no reason foradvanced notice or predictability of the proposition team’s interpreta-tion of the motion. The opposition should be able to successfully debatein an extemporaneous manner. They should do so to facilitate mean-ingful debate on a single, focused topic. The topic is a guideline fordebate. The point of proposition interpretation is not to provide thebest or optimal interpretation of the motion for debate. Their burden ismerely to provide one interpretation of the motion for debate.

Does this mean that there are no occasions for the opposition sideto challenge the interpretation of the motion by the proposition team?Of course not. It is possible to argue that the proposition team has pro-vided an illegitimate interpretation of the motion. Or, a particularlyclever opposition speaker could argue that the proposition team hasfailed to uphold their interpretation of the topic as presented in thePrime Minister’s constructive speech.

To accomplish this, the opposition should first identify the argu-ments in the opening speech that might constitute an interpretation of

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 43

the motion for debate. There are always arguments in the openingproposition speech in support of the motion. Sometimes these argu-ments are highlighted or otherwise noted by the first propositionspeaker. In many cases, the majority of the arguments involving inter-pretation of the motion are implicitly included in the substantive textof the opening speech. The fact that these arguments are not explicitlyoffered does not mean that they are not present in the speech. Insteadof arguing merely a different or “other” interpretation of the motion,the opposition team should argue that the proposition team’s case failsto meet the proposition’s interpretation of the motion.

On the motion “This House would starve a cold and feed a fever,” theproposition might introduce a case to increase the testimony of victims incriminal sentencing decisions in the USA. The opening speaker wouldargue that the criminal justice system should move from the sterility offormal due process protections exclusively for criminal defendants inorder to embrace the concerns and passions of crime victims.

In this circumstance, however, imagine a case presentation that inad-vertently supported due process: an opening speech in which the firstproposition speaker endorsed the legitimacy of established constitutionalprotections. The opposition team might then legitimately argue that thefirst proposition speaker has every right to interpret the motion but oncean interpretation is offered, the proposition team must show some loyaltyto their argument for the motion. In this case, the proposition speaker hasfailed to offer a case consistent with the established interpretation of themotion, that is, an objection to due process coddling of criminal defen-dants. This combination of proposition arguments would be a strong rea-son for the opposition side to prevail on a topicality argument in thedebate. The argument might be presented as follows:

“The proposition team has presented a case that is at odds with itsinterpretation of the motion. In the definition of the motion, the firstproposition speaker explained his team’s ambivalence, even hostility,to extant due process protections. This is their interpretation of thephrase “starve a cold” in the motion. To offer a proof for the motion,they must proffer a reduction in due process protections: they muststarve the cold.

44


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 44

45


“But the proposition speaker supports constitutional due processprotections later in her speech. This latter claim is at odds with theirinterpretation of the motion. It shows that the case does not reflectthe motion. The proposition team must lose the debate, as they havepresented a case that does not support the motion.”

The point of all this argumentation about the definition and interpretationof the motion for debate is to establish a standard for the opening propo-sition team. The standard encourages the opening speaker to create ameaningful case that might be controversial and subject to dispute byeach side. In other words, debate theory on the issue of the interpretationof the motion is designed to promote argument clash. There are threeadditional considerations to note: the matters of specific knowledge, tru-ism and tautology.

Specific knowledge refers to a violation of the principles of fair orequitable debating. The popular conception of specific knowledge is thatthe proposition speakers possess information that is “specific” (that is,private). This information may form the basis of a proposition case. If itdoes so, it will undermine fair and meaningful debate. This argumentagainst specific knowledge presumes that debates proceed best whenbased on shared information, that is, factual material, opinions and otherdata available in the public sphere or generally understood by informeduniversity students and other parliamentary debate participants.

Specific knowledge claims are appeals to ignorance. They suggestthat debaters should do little more than offer a least common denomina-tor approach to a world of ideas, selecting out the challenging, intriguing,paradoxical, innovative, complex, and counterintuitive ones and exclud-ing them from debates. It seems odd, indeed, that debaters might bepenalized for knowledge or critical insight that goes beyond obvious, con-ventional wisdom. If debate is to accomplish anything, at least in a sophis-ticated way, it ought to both inform its participants and provide seriouscritical training. In other circumstances, we call this “education” andencourage its development.

Specific knowledge produces a race to the bottom. In other words,the student with the least information, the intellectual neophyte, may bebetter positioned for success in debate competitions. For that student, all

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 45

the argument claims of the opposing side are examples of specific knowl-edge that ought to be challenged and excluded from debates. Specificknowledge functions to secure a win for the side that fails to answer themost arguments the fastest: “Brilliant opening speech, Prime Minister. Ihave never heard any such ideas before. Really. What a knowledge base!What an impressive command of the facts! Alas, it new to me. It is, there-fore, not possible for me to debate. So, the matter of this debate is nowsettled. I win! Thanks, everyone, for attending. On to my next challeng-ing round of debate!”

Specific knowledge turns the debate world on its head, providinga theoretical defense for anti-intellectualism. It suggests that debatersprepare for their event by “dumbing down” sophisticated ideas orcreative perspectives. This bankrupt theory only puts a modern spinon the concession speech, attempting to turn surrender into a win-ning ploy. That anyone falls for this ploy reveals one of the great consof contemporary debate.

The claim of specific knowledge is almost always suspect. It does notaccurately describe the knowledge base of debate’s participants. Debatersdo not have “common understandings’ of the issues introduced in debatetopics. Students have very different personal knowledge, nationalities,cultural practices, identities, and histories. They concentrate their studiesin different academic disciplines. (Is it specific knowledge for an eco-nomics student to exploit her knowledge against a religious studies stu-dent on an economics topic?) These differences actually serve as points ofconflict and tension that ultimately produce debate. In addition, the infor-mation that students use in debates is not generated internally. Studentsread textbooks, newspapers, academic journals, novels, Websites, elec-tronic newsletters, and magazines. They speak with faculty, friends andcolleagues. They develop considerable life experience at work or duringtravel. The information they possess is externally generated. In otherwords, it is public information and should be considered in debates.

Many claims of specific knowledge are presented, paradoxically, inan attempt to censor public discourse that ought to be shared in parlia-mentary debates, including information regarding science and technolo-gy, decision theory, literature, new historicism, anthropology, art criti-cism, semiotics and postmodern geography. There is no logical reason to

46


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 46

47


exclude complex and challenging ideas from contests involving sophisti-cated college students.

When confronted with the presentation of facts that seem to be spe-cific knowledge, debaters should work with what they are given ratherthan react by simply crying “specific knowledge.” Provided that theproposition team gives all of the relevant information to support a partic-ular case, the opposition can still win the debate by referring to the infor-mation provided by the proposition team. If the proposition team with-holds some information only to drop it on the opposition team in the nextspeech by saying “but what you do not know is…” the opposition canrespond that this particular piece of evidence was not presented to themor something to this effect.

The truism, another example of a fairness violation in parliamen-tary debating, is equally suspect. The truism is an opposition argu-ment explaining that the proposition team has offered an interpreta-tion of the motion that is an objective TRUTH. As such, it cannot bedebated. There are few propositions that can literally be consideredtruisms, and few ever appear in debate rounds. You will most likelynot, for example, be asked to debate whether or not the earthrevolves around the sun or whether two plus two equals four. Otherpropositions that are considered de facto truisms are propositionsthat are almost impossible to debate: “Child pornography is bad;”“Women should not be excluded from the workplace;” “The poorshould not be forced to undergo involuntary sterilization.”

In actual debate practice, the opposition’s claim that the proposition’sinterpretation characterizes the proposition as a truism is unlikely to getthem anywhere. The proposition team’s interpretation of the motion is notobjectively true. It is an argument that may be effectively refuted. Mostopposition claims of truism are nothing other than hubris. The debatermakes the claim that it is not possible to argue against the propositionteam’s case. The speaker is not arguing that she alone is incapable of argu-ing against the case. Rather, the debater is making the extraordinarilyexaggerated claim that the case interpretation of the motion is unfairbecause no one could argue against it. Put another way, the debaterseems to suggest that she has scanned infinite thought and reached theconclusion that no one could answer the proposition team’s arguments.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 47

In debates, you may have the occasion to debate proposition casesthat seem to be truistic or otherwise unable to be debated. This does notmean that you should throw up your hands and roll over. Often thesecases can be refuted by creative opposition strategies. For ideas, we sug-gest you learn more about the practice of criticism by reading ChapterNine in this book. Remember that there are many ways to negate a case.One excellent strategy is to debate against the underlying assumptions ofthe case rather than the claims of the case itself.

Here is an example. On the topic “This House regrets the injustice,”a proposition team argues that the Holocaust should be condemned. Howshould you, as an opposition team, debate this case that appears to be atruism? You actually have many possible lines of argument at your dis-posal. You might argue that the Holocaust shouldn’t be removed from thecategory of genocide and condemned in an individual way. You could saythat this creates a special status for the Holocaust, and that the Holocaustshouldn’t necessarily have a special status, even in the confines of WorldWar II (during which at least 75 million died), nor among other genocidesin history in which tens of millions were killed. The danger here is theexclusion of other genocides in order to focus on the Holocaust. Youcould say that this exclusion risks causing us to ignore the genocides inour midst – we therefore do nothing about Rwanda or Bosnia-Herzegovina, or we don’t do anything in circumstances in which aborig-inal people are assimilated into cultures, lose their land, and simply die outin a passive rather than active way. We may actually generate victims bycondemning the Holocaust or otherwise giving it a special status.

You could also argue that condemnation is an inappropriate and dan-gerous reaction to the Holocaust. You could say that it is the act of con-demnation or isolation and exclusion of the Nazis, portraying the Nazisas non-human monsters or as symbols of evil, which makes us believe thatit’s appropriate to direct anger toward them. This portrayal means we failto identify the similarities between Nazis and other people in positions ofpower today, risking the loss of our critical capacity to democraticallyengage people who commit evil acts.

Further, you could say that when we move to condemn theHolocaust, we bypass identification of our own moral culpability in vio-lence. There are all kinds of privileges that allow people to commit vio-

48


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 48

49


lence. You can claim that by presuming to position yourself as a moralauthority able to condemn people for their transgressions, you act as theNazis did, condemning the Jews and Gypsies and other minority popu-lations as sub-human and evil, allowing in turn their slaughter. The impli-cation of this argument might be that you shouldn’t externalize blame forthe problem; instead you should look inward to your own moral culpa-bility. If you think these arguments are long shots or irrelevant, youshould think again. These are all serious arguments in the academy – forexample, these arguments are made in Ward Churchill’s book, A LittleMatter of Genocide.

If you say there’s no way to debate against this case, you effectivelyignore learning all these other issues. Wouldn’t you be better off if youwere be able to say that you might be morally culpable in victimizing oth-ers and should investigate that, or that condemnation is inappropriate asis the search for vengeance? These are important arguments to air fordebate, particularly the argument that the Holocaust shouldn’t be thesymbol for genocide. Many researchers and advocates argue that geno-cide may be perpetuated and, paradoxically, encouraged if we focus allour energies on the Holocaust. Arguing a truism means you lose the abil-ity to learn about all these important issues. Ideally, the process of debateshould force us to create and advance arguments against all positions. Asthis example shows, you do not need to argue directly against the claimsof the proposition’s case to refute it.

One other bit of advice: If the proposition team presents informa-tion that is objectively accurate, that is, a claim with which there canbe no disagreement or debate, they will have ascended to divinity. Stoparguing with them and begin praying to them. In no circumstanceshould you argue with the divine or enlightened. (Punishment involvesa smoting of some sort.)

Tautology is the final theoretical issue regarding the interpretation ofany motion. A tautology, also known as circular logic, is an argument fal-lacy in which a speaker fails to engage ideas logically. The speaker mere-ly repeats a claim again and again, typically confusing repetition of anidea with analysis. Do not do this. Instead, offer reasoning to supportyour interpretation. Tautology is a rare affliction. It is possible to debateor judge for years and never cross one of these creatures.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 49

Suggested Exercises

1. The debater selects a motion for interpretation. (There are more than1,000 sample motions listed in Appendix 1.) She is given two minutes toimagine and outline an interpretation of the motion. She has one minute tomake a verbal presentation of the motion. This exercise is repeated four orfive times, with criticism from the audience regarding the following:

Is the interpretation convincing for a debate judge and why?Has the speaker interpreted the motion to successfully restrict argu-ment possibilities for the opposition?What foundation is there for replies to opposition arguments abouttruism and specific knowledge?

In a 15 to 20 minute practice period, a speaker will be able to prepare inter-pretations for different kinds of motions. With a performance evaluation forfive interpretations, the speaker is likely to make more interpretations andreceive more criticism on motions interpretations than at a full invitationalor intervarsity tournament.

2. Individual debaters are presented with a motion for debate. Thedebaters have five minutes to list as many reasonable and differentcases for the motion as they can.

This exercise teaches debaters that language is subject to interpre-tation and recontextualization. The motion will not mean the same thingto all the assembled participants for a debate. In addition, the exercisewill assist debaters in brainstorming a motion in order to select the bestpossible expression of opinion, the best case, for the motion.

50


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 50

51

CHAPTER 3:

ARGUMENT

THEORY FOR

DEBATERS

Introduction

Arguments are the most basic building blocks of debate.Understanding what makes arguments work distinguishes suc-cessful debaters from their less successful colleagues, and creates

advantages for even the most experienced and precocious debaters.Arguments are like automobiles: If you understand how they work, youare likely to get more service out of them, understand what went wrongwhen they break down, and fix the problem before your next outing.

There is a considerable amount of literature dealing with argumenttheory and its minutiae. Most argument, speech, or communicationtexts include at least one chapter about argument theory. While thismaterial goes into great detail about types of arguments and the mostpropitious conditions for their analysis and refutation, these theoreticalelaborations are usually ponderous and mostly useless for the average

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 51

debater. Debates proceed orally, at a relatively quick pace. Debaters donot have enough time to apply the detailed argument analysis tech-niques in the average debate and argumentation text. Most argumenttextbooks assume that students will be using their prescriptions to ana-lyze texts rather than quickly developing oral arguments. Our goal inpresenting the following analysis of argument theory is to make it use-ful for debaters, whose needs are different from those of academicians.

What matters most about argument theory to the average debater issimply this: What differentiates a bad argument from a good argument?This is, in many ways, an unanswerable question. There really is no suchthing as a bad argument per se; rather, arguments must be judged on thebasis of their relative effectiveness. To this end, we say that arguments canbe more or less persuasive, a judgment always made in the complex con-texts of audiences, purposes, and settings. Arguments that fail in somecontexts may be very successful in others. If you were to argue in favorof trade restrictions to protect organized labor interests, you might fail topersuade the G-7. Does this mean your argument is bad? Not at all. Itmeans that your argument has not succeeded.

Debaters must learn some basic concepts in argument theory sothat they can make successful arguments and presentations.

A Brief History of Argument

Argument is distinct from debate. An argument is an attempt to influencesomeone else in some direction. Usually, this direction is a matter of belief,adherence, or action. Some arguments are about facts. These arguments dealwith facts or definitions in controversy and attempt to get the listener tobelieve in certain facts. Other arguments are about values. These argumentstry to persuade the listener to adhere to particular value systems; alternately,they may use given value systems to persuade the listener to accept certainstates of affairs as consistent with their values. Finally, some arguments areabout policies. These arguments attempt to influence the listener in mattersof policy or courses of action. In real life as in debate, however, these distinc-tions are far from clear. For example, questions of policy always involve ques-tions of fact and value, even if these associations are always made implicitly.Debate is not the same thing as argument. Debate is the infrastructure for

52


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 52

53

ARGUMENT THEORY FOR DEBATERS

the presentation of many and various arguments, all of which can andusually do serve distinct and disparate functions throughout the course ofa debate. Of course, in debate as in life, not all arguments are createdequally. That is, some are more successful than others. The immediatelyrelevant question for debaters is how to make successful arguments andhow to make these successful arguments work in debates.Often, arguments are not successful because they are incomplete. It isimportant to remember that an argument is different from a simpleclaim. A claim is, most simply, an assertion that something is so:

“The death penalty is justified.”“Hyacinths are better than roses.”“Pitt the Elder was the greatest British prime minister.”“There is no such thing as reality television.”“The USA should eliminate its nuclear arsenal.”“Economic growth is more important than environmental protection.”

Most propositions that you will debate will be simple claims about theworld. They may take the form of propositions of fact, value, or policy,or of any combination of these. In everyday situations, many peoplemistake simple claims for their more sophisticated cousin, argument.This error leads to difficult and often unresolvable debates not unlikethose had by children: “Is too.” “Is not.” “Is too.” “Is not…” Thismethod of argumentation is similar to the method of conflict resolutionused by warring mountain goats, whereby both parties simply lowertheir heads and butt horns until someone falls off the cliff and dies.

An argument is more than a claim. While a claim asserts that some-thing is so, an argument attempts to prove why that thing is so. Ofcourse, as you might imagine, there are many schools of thought abouthow this proof is or should be achieved. Aristotle argued that proofwas either created to suit an occasion or already extant and evident. Hecalled these kinds of proofs, respectively, “artistic” and “non-artistic.”Aristotle’s great insight that persuasion is an art (rather than a science)is important for debaters of all stripes to remember. Debate is an art atleast in this way: There is no one correct way to go about its practiceand performance. Our proofs and arguments are artistic in that they

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 53

are creative enterprises that demand constant innovation. In debate,we rely on artistic proofs that we create to justify our arguments or teardown those of our opponents. To this end, we will discuss primarilyhow artistic proofs, or attempts at persuasion, are created and sub-stantiated in the practice of argumentation.

Aristotle’s theories of argument are still relevant to contemporarydebaters. Of particular note are his concepts of logos, ethos, and pathos. ForAristotle, persuasion through logos attempts to show that a thing is so: Itis primarily and classically understood as a logical proof. Proof throughethos attempts to demonstrate the credibility and good will of a speaker,since people have a tendency to believe people they trust or respect.Finally, proof through pathos tries to influence the feelings or emotions ofan audience so that they sympathize with the issue or argument at hand.

After 24 centuries, good debaters still use these three types of per-suasion to win debates and influence judges. Contrary to popularbelief, the value and effectiveness of an argument should not be meas-ured solely on its logical content, although logic is important. To besuccessful, debaters must have ethos – they must appear credible andconfident. Debaters must also use pathos to persuade – they mustappeal directly to the assumptions and emotions of their audience.

Debate is not a science. It has only a familial relationship to the prac-tice of formal logic of the type used in classical mathematics or scientificproof. It is worthwhile to understand this relationship so that you canunderstand how persuasion works. The building block of formal logic is aform of reasoning known as a syllogism. A syllogism looks like this:

All dogs are mortal. (Major premise)Roswell is a dog. (Minor premise)Roswell is mortal. (Conclusion)

As you can see, the syllogism begins with a general premise, known asthe major premise – in this case, the statement that “All dogs are mor-tal.” It then proceeds to the minor, or second premise, usually an argu-ment connecting to the specific case to be examined. In this case, theminor premise is “Roswell is a dog.” Finally, the conclusion is reached:“Roswell is mortal.”

54


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 54

55


In syllogistic reasoning, the assumptions, premises, and conclu-sions are all explicitly laid out for everyone to see. However, asAristotle noticed, this method of proof is neither efficient nor effectivein oral communication. Imagine how totally bored your audiencewould be if you spoke like a formal logician, defining all your termsand spelling out all your premises. They would no doubt be asleep longbefore you got to your conclusion. Syllogistic reasoning is also ill-suit-ed for debate because debaters, like all public speakers, deal in proba-bilities, rather than certainties (as in the case of mathematics or science).Consider the following formal argument:

All dogs love to chase their own tails.Roswell is a dog.Roswell loves to chase her own tail.

Although this argument is structurally sound, its initial premise (“Alldogs love to chase their own tails”) is somewhat less certain than theinitial premise of the previous argument (“All dogs are mortal.”). Themajor premise is up for debate, because it retains an element of uncer-tainty, requiring persuasion to make others believe it. In fact, manydogs doubtless feel it beneath their dignity to entertain themselves orothers with the pointless exercise of chasing their own tails.

The lesson here is that while formal syllogistic proof may work inmath class, it is a poor fit for the uncertain realm of human (and ani-mal – see above) affairs with which debaters deal every day. Even ifyou believe that mathematical and scientific concepts deal inirrefutable certainty or universal truths, it is difficult to extend thesame status to statements about human affairs and relationships.

It is important to remember that proof in debate and argumentation isnot like proof in mathematics or formal logic. Arguments that make logicalsense can easily fail to be persuasive. By the same token, many argumentsthat are very persuasive may turn out to make little (if any) logical sense. Incommunication, we use a form of rhetorical proof known as an enthymeme.Once again, this critical concept in argument theory originates withAristotle. An enthymeme is a kind of rhetorical proof – the rhetorical versionof a syllogism. Enthymemes deal with probabilities and uncertainties.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 55

Enthymemes can also function as a kind of abbreviated, or truncated, syllo-gism – that is, an argument in which one or more premises are unstated. Thistechnique allows alleviation of the boredom factor usually associated withformal logic. It also has other, more important benefits. Consider that everyaudience has internalized some arguments, usually cultural or social normsand expectations that vary based on a number of factors, including gender,ethnicity, class or social standing, political beliefs, and the like. Good speak-ers and debaters know their audiences. Even Aristotle emphasized theimportance of knowing what kinds of assumptions and ideas your audiencemight hold. Because argumentation is fundamentally a process of persuasion,it is an activity that occurs between or among communicating individuals.All parties contribute to the process, not just the speaker.

So why leave premises (or even conclusions) unstated? This tech-nique seems to run contrary to our ideas about good argumentation,but in fact is how everyday arguments function all the time. When youare trying to convince friends that you should dine together, you do notphrase your argument like this:

All friends enjoy eating a meal together.We are friends.We enjoy eating a meal together.

or this:

We should get a meal together.Dinner is a meal.We should get dinner together.

or even this:

We are all hungry.When we are hungry, we should eat.We should eat.

You might simply say: “Hey, let’s go get dinner,” leaving unstated allthe premises of such a claim. You do not need, given this audience, to

56


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 56

57


elucidate all the parts of your argument. Your audience fills in the restof the argument with you, perhaps thinking “Well … friends do enjoyeating together, and I am kind of hungry… yeah, let’s go to dinner!” Infact, if you were to methodically lay out all the premises of your argu-ment, you would probably not be invited along on the grounds that youwere either clearly deranged or a colossal bore – neither of which is adesirable characteristic in a dining partner.

Debaters, however, rarely get to debate such uncontroversial top-ics (dinner) in front of such sympathetic audiences (friends). Theyneed to craft persuasive arguments on difficult and often quite contro-versial topics in front of audiences or judges who may (often unbe-knownst to them) be downright hostile to the position they are advanc-ing. This task is much more difficult than trying to convince a group ofhungry people to order a pizza.

What you need to know, then, is how to make rhetorical reasoningwork for you in all kinds of situations. This task requires an under-standing of the method of rhetorical reasoning: What is it that makesarguments work? What makes arguments effective? The British logi-cian Stephen Toulmin made important contributions to argument the-ory that are useful for this line of inquiry. Toulmin found six compo-nents of arguments:

Claim: A statement that something is so.Data: The backing for the claim.Warrant: The link between the claim and the grounds.Backing: Support for the warrant.Modality: The degree of certainty employed in offering the argument.Rebuttal: Exceptions to the initial claim.

This is an extremely formal model of argumentation. Few arguments, if any,display all of these components, particularly at first blush. Nevertheless, theToulmin model provides us with useful tools for analyzing the componentsof arguments. Of these six characteristics of arguments, three are uniquelyvaluable for understanding basic argument theory. In this chapter, we willuse primarily the concepts of claims, warrants, and data.

Simply speaking, all arguments have a claim, which is simply a

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 57

statement that something is so. Arguments also have warrants, whichare reasons why the claim is valid. Warrants are the “because” part ofan argument. Finally, arguments have data – the evidence for the valid-ity of the warrants. All three components are normally hallmarks ofcomplete (and thus potentially more successful) arguments. A novicedebater might simply offer claims to prove her point:

“The death penalty is justified.”

A more sophisticated debater knows that her argument will be morepersuasive with an accompanying warrant:

“The death penalty is justified because it deters crime.”

Better yet is the technique of the advanced debater, who offers proofto cement the credibility and persuasive power of her argument:

“The death penalty is justified because it deters crime.Longitudinal studies conducted across the nation strongly point to thisdeterrent effect.”

Referring back to the concept of the enthymeme, we can see howeven this complete argument is itself incomplete:

Data: The death penalty has a deterrent effect.Warrants: 1. The death penalty deters crime.

2. (Policies that deter crime are justified.)Claim: The death penalty is justified.

If this argument “works” (is persuasive), it will be in part because it playson the audience’s assumption that policies that deter crime are good. It mayalso be persuasive because the data is credible, or from a credible source.Of course, there are many other unstated assumptions of this particularargument. It assumes, for example, that the proposition has the moralauthority to put people to death in the first place, an assumption called intoquestion by many anti-death penalty advocates. This particular formulationof the argument, therefore, might not work with an audience whoseassumptions are different from those the speaker assumed they would hold.

58


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 58

59


For successful debating, it is critical that you understand and eluci-date the assumptions of the opposition. Many people argue by simplyrebutting claims with other claims. This is not a sophisticated or persua-sive form of argumentation. Good debaters know that a claim is bestrefuted by undermining its supporting assumptions, warrants, and data.

Argument Analysis

The Toulmin model is not just a vocabulary list for argument theorists. Itcan also be a kind of checklist for aspiring debaters. In debate, we don’tjust make arguments; we also analyze them. Argument analysis is a kind ofinterrogation whereby we ask questions of arguments to determine theirviability as well as their potential weak points. Debaters need to learn tothink critically about arguments: There is little place for uncritical accept-ance in debate, particularly if you want to have the best arguments orrejoinders. When we encounter an argument, we should ask ourselves aseries of questions about it. Toulmin’s model gives us a few pointers aboutquestions we can ask. For example, you might analyze a particular argu-ment by answering the following questions about it:

• What’s the claim being made? In other words, what is the thrust orgist of the argument? What is it that the speaker ultimately wants youto believe or agree with?

• Does the claim have a warrant? What reasons does the speaker giveto support her claim?

• Is the warrant supported by data? What kind of data? What is thesource of the data?

These questions for analysis are more or less purely informational,because you need to know how an argument works in order to be able toeffectively criticize it. You should also ask more critical questions, such as:

• Are there exceptions that could be made to the stated claim? What arethey? How do those exceptions affect the overall validity of the claim?

• Is the reasoning for the warrant sound? What kinds of assumptionsare made in its reasoning?

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 59

• Is the data credible? Does it come from a credible source? Whatkinds of circumstances might the data not take into account?

In this section, you will learn how to analyze specific kinds of argu-ments with versions of these and other questions. It should be notedthat there are as many types of arguments as there are debaters who donot want to have to memorize all the different types of arguments. Wewill discuss the strengths and potential pitfalls of a few basic types ofreasoning.

One of the most common types of argument is the argument fromexample. When we reason with examples, we may proceed from aspecific case to a general theory or conclusion. We may also use ageneral theory to predict how specific examples might play them-selves out. The first kind of argument from example, where aspeaker reasons from specific examples to a general hypothesis, iscalled induction in classical logic. By contrast, deductive reasoningbegins with general theories and uses those theories to deduce thedetails of specific examples. The most relevant issue for debaterswhen thinking about reasoning by example is always simply this:What is the relationship between the specific cases and the gener-al theories being presented?

Reasoning by example is a powerful way to prove a point, or makeor negate a case. Proposition teams usually try to prove that there is aneed for their proposed solution by providing examples of people orthings that are harmed in the present system. They may show that theirplan solves the problem by providing an example of a situation it wouldalleviate. Advertisers may sell a product using similar tactics. Theymay try to show that the average toilet bowl is filthy by showing thetoilet bowl of the Jones family, thus creating a need. Then they mayshow that their product works by showing that same toilet, cleaned toa blinding white, presumably by means of their product. As a debater,you can use a variety of examples to prove your arguments. You mightprovide factual examples, drawn from research or personal experience.You might also use hypothetical examples to draw the listener intoyour story.

60


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 60

61


Many people use faulty forms of reasoning by example that analert debater might catch and use to her advantage. Thus it is impor-tant to carefully analyze these arguments Ask yourself:

• Are there enough examples to prove the claim? Too often, debaterswill reason simply from anecdotal evidence.

• Are there examples that might directly counter the given examples?• Are the examples typical of the category the speaker wants to gener-

alize about? It is important to have a representative sample if youwish to reason from example.

Finally, reasoning from example often falls prey to the logical fallaciesknown as the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of division. These arediscussed in the next part of this chapter.

Another kind of reasoning is known as reasoning from anal-ogy. When we argue from analogy, we are trying to show thatwhat was true in one situation will be true in an analogous situa-tion. An analogy is a comparison of people, places, things, events,or even abstract concepts. Debaters reason from analogy all thetime. In making a case for non-violent resistance to a politicalpolicy, you might argue that since such resistance worked in theAmerican civil rights movement, it could work in another case aswell. Advertisers reason by analogy. In the case of the Jones’stoilet, referenced above, the advertiser clearly wants viewers todraw an analogy between the Jones’s toilet and their own toilet:“By God, if it worked for their toilet, it’s bound to work in mine!”When analyzing analogical arguments, you should ask the fol-lowing questions:

How strong is the analogy? Are there differences between the twosituations, people, events, etc. that are being compared? What arethose differences?

• What are the similarities between the two things being compared?• Do the similarities outweigh the differences? Do the differences out-

weigh the similarities?• Beware the fallacy of the false analogy. Keep your analogies precise

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 61

and sparing to maximize their effectiveness.

Debaters often try to establish causal relationships, either to prove theircase or to negate the case of the other side. This technique is called rea-soning by cause, and it can either be from cause to effect or from effectto cause. When you reason from cause to effect, you begin with a causeand attempt to show what its effects might be. You might argue, forexample, that if propositions act to ban human cloning, the effect wouldbe to drive that research underground into an unregulated black market.In debate, one of the most common forms of causal reasoning is the dis-advantage, whereby the opposition argues that the proposition’s proposedpolicy will cause negative consequences.

When reasoning by cause, you can also look at existing effectsand try to determine their cause(s). Proposition teams use this tac-tic all the time when they make their case for change. If you werearguing for gun control, for example, you might start by showinghow many deaths are inflicted by guns every day. You might thenargue that these deaths are the result of (that is, they are caused by)the existing, permissive gun laws. This process would be an exam-ple of reasoning from effect to cause and is the same tactic doctorsoften use to make diagnoses: They will note that you have a coughand a fever, and will reason, based on these symptoms, that youhave the flu. As you might imagine, though, reasoning by cause isa tricky business. A few questions to keep in mind when analyzingcausal arguments:Are there other causes that could have prompted the discussed effect?

What other effects does the cause produce? How do these weighagainst the already specified causes?

Causal reasoning is also prone to many logical fallacies, such asthe post hoc fallacy and the fallacy of common cause. It is worth notinghere that there is another type of reasoning, closely related to causalreasoning, known as argument by sign. A sign, of course, is some-thing that stands for something else. When you see a sign, you oftenassume that certain conditions are true based on your knowledge ofwhat that sign usually represents. For example, when you see a “ForRent” sign on an apartment building, you might believe that you

62


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 62

63


could rent an apartment in that building if you wanted to. Often wemistake signs for causes. It does not follow, for example, that theapartment is for rent because the sign is there. Correlation of eventsdoes not imply causality.

A final kind of argument is called argument from authority, orreasoning from testimony. Sometimes when we make arguments,we rely on the opinions or statements of others to help make ourpoint. Most often, arguments from authority or testimony arefound in the data component of an argument. Debaters routinelycite various studies or expert opinions to provide the proofs fortheir claims. The practice of evidence analysis and comparison is acritical part of successful debating, and the evaluation of argu-ments from authority or testimony is a good place to start in yourquest to figure out what constitutes good evidence and what con-stitutes bad evidence. Here are some preliminary questions to askof reasoning from authority:

• What are the qualifications of the person(s) cited as a source? Arethey qualified to speak about the subject they are cited in?

• Is the source relatively more or less biased about the topic at hand?

Argument from authority is a good way to establish your credibil-ity as a speaker. Audiences are more likely to believe speakers whoappear to have credible, relevant facts and testimony to supporttheir conclusions than those who appear to use mostly conjectureand hearsay.

Suggested Exercises:

1. Find advertisements that represent each of the categories of reason-ing listed above (from authority, from cause, from example, from anal-ogy, from sign). Break down the argument made in each ad using thecomponents of the Toulmin model explained in this section.

2. Examine the editorial page of your local newspaper. Take each edi-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 63

torial and analyze the argument using the techniques listed above.What is the primary argument made by the author? What warrantsdoes she use? What kind of data does she offer as support? Whichof the major kinds of reasoning are used in the editorial?

Logical Fallacies

In logic and the generalized study of reasoning, there are generallyunderstood to be such things as good reasoning and bad reasoning.Typically, bad reasoning is characterized by falling into one or more ofthe classically compiled logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is simply afailure of logic. Arguments that are said to be fallacious have gapingholes or misleading leaps in their structure and reasoning. Debatersneed to familiarize themselves with the logical fallacies: The ability topoint out holes in your opponents’ reasoning is a very powerful tool indebates. As we have learned, however, arguments are not necessarilyintrinsically good or bad; rather, they should be evaluated in terms oftheir relative effectiveness. In fact, many arguments that are fallaciousor otherwise fatally flawed are widely accepted. The argument type wecall the slippery slope, for example, appears repeatedly in public policyspeeches and analyses. Once you understand more about logical falla-cies and learn to identify them, you may be surprised at how often theyturn up in commonly accepted arguments.

Appeal to force. This fallacy occurs when you tell someonethat some kind of misfortune will happen to them if they don’tagree with you, e.g., “If you don’t believe that our utopia is ideal,then I guess we’ll have to release the hounds.”

Appeal to the crowd. Sometimes called the “bandwagon,”or “ad populum,” this fallacy occurs when the arguer contends youwill be left out of the crowd if you don’t agree: “All of the cool kidssmoke cigarettes these days.”

Appeal to ignorance. When an argument has not been dis-

64


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 64

65


proven, it does not therefore follow that it is true. Yet the appeal toignorance works a surprisingly large amount of the time, particu-larly in conspiracy theories and their ilk: “No one has yet proventhat aliens have not landed on Earth; therefore, our theory aboutongoing colonization should be taken seriously.”

Appeal to emotions. This fallacy is what it sounds like.Speakers routinely try to play on the emotions of the crowd inlieu of making real arguments. “I know this national missiledefense plan has its detractors, but won’t someone please think ofthe children?”

Appeal to tradition. Often a substitute for actual argument,the appeal to tradition happens when a speaker tries to justify herarguments by reference to aggregated habits, e.g., “We should con-tinue to discriminate against the poor because that’s what we’vealways done.”

Appeal to authority. While it is often appropriate and evennecessary to cite credible sources to prove a point, the appeal toauthority becomes fallacious when it is a substitute for reasoningor when the cited authority’s credibility is dubious.

Ad hominem. Sometimes, arguers will attack the person makingthe argument rather than the argument itself. This is an ad hominem(Latin for “to the man”) attack, e.g., “I don’t know how my oppo-nent found the time to research this issue, since plainly he doesn’teven have time to bathe.”

Begging the question. Begging the question occurs whenthe conclusion assumes what it tries to prove: “Of course he triedto fix the boxing match, since he was one of the people who stoodto gain by fixing the boxing match.”

Red herring. An old favorite, the red herring happens whenthe arguer diverts attention to another issue and draws a conclu-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 65

sion based on that diversion. “The candidate has a weak stand oneducation. Just look at what she says about foreign policy.”

Hasty generalization. This fallacy occurs when a conclusion isdrawn based on a non-representative sample, e.g., “Most Americansoppose the war. Just ask these three peace demonstrators.”

False cause, or “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.”

This fallacy is just what it sounds like. In the English, at least.Sometimes, speakers will draw a faulty link between premises anda conclusion such that the link depends upon a causal connectionthat probably does not exist: “The sun rises every time I get out ofbed. Therefore, by getting out of bed, I make the sun rise.” It isimportant to remember that correlation does not imply causality,and neither does chronology imply causality.

Equivocation. In this fallacy, the meaning of a critical term ischanged through the course of an argument. Lewis Carroll inAlice’s Adventures Through the Looking Glass: “’You couldn’t have it ifyou did want it,’ the Queen said. ’The rule is jam tomorrow andjam yesterday - but never Jam today’ ‘It must come sometimes toJam today,’ Alice objected. ‘No, it can’t,’ said the Queen. ‘It’s jamevery other day: today isn’t every other day, you know.’”

Slippery slope. One of the more popular logical fallacies,particularly in political circles, the slippery slope argument con-tends that an event will set off an uncontrollable chain reactionwhen there is no real reason to expect that reaction to occur. “If westart regulating carbon dioxide, the next thing you know theproposition team will be telling you what to eat for breakfast.”

Weak analogy. While argument by analogy is a very strong,common form of argumentation, the weak analogy fallacy occurswhen an argument’s conclusion rests on a nonexistent similaritybetween two examples, e.g., “Well, if it worked in a college term

66


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 66

67


paper, it’ll work in American foreign policy.”

False dichotomy. This fallacy occurs when the premise of anargument is a disjunctive statement that presents two alternativesas if they were mutually exclusive, e.g., “It’s either free schoollunches or nuclear war;” “Either you let me go to the concert or mylife will be ruined.”

Fallacy of composition. This fallacy happens when theconclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transferenceof a characteristic from the parts to the whole: “Jake likes fish. Healso likes chocolate. Therefore, he would like chocolate coveredfish.”

Fallacy of division. The opposite of the fallacy of composi-tion, the fallacy of division occurs when the conclusion of an argu-ment depends on the faulty attribution of a characteristic from thewhole to its parts: “The average American family has 2.3 children.The Jones family is an average American family. Therefore, theJones family has 2.3 children.”

Complex question. Used in questioning periods, this fallacyoccurs when a single question is really two or more questions: “Doyou still cheat on your tests?;” “How long have you been smokingbanana leaves?”

Scarecrow. Formerly called the “straw man” fallacy, this kindof argument is a diversionary tactic whereby an arguer exaggeratesor mischaracterizes his or her opponent’s position and then pro-ceeds to represent this caricatured. This is a common tactic used inadvertising campaigns: “Worried about your family getting criti-cally ill? Better use our disinfectant.” In some circles, this fallacyis known as the “fallacy of refutation,” though nobody really usesthis terminology anymore.

Scapegoating. This fallacy is similar to the scarecrow fallacy.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 67

The term “scapegoating” comes to us from the Judeo-Christiantradition. In the Old Testament book of Leviticus, Aaron confessedthe sins of his people over a goat and sent the goat away, therebyabsolving the sins of his community. In contemporary rhetoricaltheory, we say someone is scapegoating when he or she attributesa current situation to a group of people who may or may not beresponsible for the problem. Politicians are notorious for scape-goating minority groups for broad social problems. In America, forexample, illegal immigrants are often convenient scapegoats forbudget or social services problems.

Non sequiturs. This is not so much a fallacy, per se, as a fail-ure of reasoning. The Latin phrase non sequitur means “does notfollow.” Thus, reasoning that is non sequitur is composed of argu-ments that are irrelevant to the topic. As a debater, you shouldinsist that your opponents’ reasoning stick strictly to the topic(s)at hand.

Common cause. Often, two things will occur together so reg-ularly that you are tempted to assume that they are cause andeffect. However, sometimes those two events are the cause of athird factor, which must be taken into consideration to make thereasoning complete. For example, noticing that there are manydead fish in a river and that the river’s water is undrinkable, youmight conclude that the dead fish caused the undrinkable water.However, in so doing you might miss that an industry’s dumpinginto the water caused both pollutants.


1. Examine a popular magazine. Find advertisements that use oneor more of the above logical fallacies. Explain how each adver-tisement uses faulty reasoning.

2. Each of the following arguments uses at least one logical falla-cy. Identify why each argument is fallacious and explain how it

68


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 68

69


could be improved.

a) Every atom in my body is invisible. Therefore, I am invisible.b) If you want to grow up to be like Wonder Woman, you’d bet-

ter eat those carrots.c) Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy is bankrupt. Nietzsche was

an immoral man who went mad from syphilis before he died.d) Where did you hide the cookies you stole?e) Pianist Ray Charles says Sinclair Paints are the best. So be sure

to use Sinclair Paints when you redecorate your home.f) Philosophers are highly intelligent individuals, because if

they weren’t highly intelligent, they wouldn’t be philoso-phers.

g) Ronald Reagan met with space aliens in 1987, and that can-not be disproven.

h) Sodium and chlorine, the atomic components of salt, aredeadly poisons. Therefore, salt is a deadly poison.

Practical Argument Theory

Now that you’ve learned a good bit about basic argument theory, youneed to know more about how to use these concepts practically indebates. In this section, we will explore some ways you can do this. Wehave emphasized repeatedly in this chapter the idea that there is nosuch thing as a bad argument or a good argument per se. Rememberthat many arguments that are not structurally or logically sound areoften very functional and persuasive. In communication, validity is notsomething that is given, but is a belief that is the product of successfulpersuasion. Advertisers know this and use this phenomenon to theiradvantage all the time.

Can you think of some examples of ad campaigns that are suc-cessful, yet make little (if any) logical sense? Consider how oftenadvertisers use arguments that we would call logical fallacies. Theappeal to the crowd and the appeal to emotions are very commonadvertising techniques. A car manufacturer, for example, might imply

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 69

in their advertisement that their auto will make you more attractiveto women. Does it therefore follow that their auto will, in fact, getyou more dates? Of course not. Does the campaign work regardless?All too often. Audiences are very susceptible to appeals to emotions.This is one of the factors that makes these arguments so dangerousand often ethically suspect.

The appeal to the crowd is also a popular ad technique. A per-fume manufacturer might use a bandwagon appeal to get you tobuy their scent, perhaps by showing many attractive, cool youngpeople with whom you might like to identify, all of whom happento be wearing the perfume in question. Does it therefore followthat if you wear this cologne you will be attractive and cool?Certainly not. Does the campaign work regardless? Probably so.Audiences do not necessarily want to feel as if they do not fit in.

We can learn a lot about practical argumentation by studyingadvertisements. Consider that a typical advertisement is structuredvery much like a typical proposition case: i.e., an advertiser willestablish a need or harm that exists in the present system; they willthen propose a solution (the product being hawked, convenientlyenough); then they will show that the product solves the problem.Because advertisers, like debaters, use enthymematic reasoning,they may leave out some of these components. Yet if you examinemost ads, you will find that these components are almost universal-ly inferred, if not directly present.

One of the advantages of learning argument theory is that thisknowledge will help you become a more critical consumer of informa-tion and of products and their accompanying advertising claims.Another advantage, of course, is that it will help you become a better,more successful debater.

We have already learned about many types of arguments usedin debates and in everyday reasoning. These arguments (by exam-ple, from authority, etc.) can be used in many different contexts byeither side in a parliamentary debate. What we need is a way to takethese formal categories of reasoning and make them functional fordebaters. We suggest that in debate, there are really only two broadcategories of arguments, separated by their strategic function: offen-

70


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 70

71


sive and defensive arguments. Offensive arguments are arguments foryour side, or case, or position. When you argue offensively, youestablish affirmative reasons for why your side should win thedebate. When the opposition argues disadvantages to the proposi-tion’s case, they are arguing offensively. When the propositionargues link or impact turns (a type of argument discussed in thechapter on disadvantages) to these disadvantages, they are arguingoffensively. When the opposition argues that adoption of theircounterplan would be net beneficial over adoption of the propositioncase, they are arguing offensively. When the proposition teamargues advantages to adoption of their case, they are arguing offen-sively. Debates are won or lost based on the power and prolifera-tion of offensive arguments. To win debates consistently, you mustestablish why you win early and often.

That said, debates are also won or lost based on defensive argu-ments. As you might imagine, a defensive argument is an argumentthat plays defense against the other team’s arguments. Defensivearguments show why you should not lose the debate. When theopposition argues that there is no need for the proposition’s pro-posed solution, they are arguing defensively. When the propositionargues link take-outs or impact take-outs (also discussed in the dis-advantage chapter) to an opposition team’s disadvantage, they arearguing defensively.

The distinctions between offensive and defensive argumentsmay seem hard to grasp. If you feel that way, you’re not alone. Infact, the two kinds of arguments blur into each other quite a bit,but understanding the difference still serves an important func-tional purpose: To win a debate, you must show both why you win and whythe other team’s arguments don’t mean that you lose. That is, you mustargue both offensively and defensively to win a debate, particular-ly in the rebuttal speeches. This concept will be covered moreextensively in the chapter on performance skills.

Another way to understand the concepts of argument offenseand defense is to think of them as arguments of advancement andrefutation. When you advance an argument, you are making a claim,hopefully (if you’re doing it right) with an accompanying warrant

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 71

and some data (if it is available). Remember: Arguments are notjust claims. Arguments explain why something is so. So an argu-ment of advancement is just what it sounds like: the opening salvoof a debate, whereby a claim and reasoning is advanced for discus-sion. But debates can’t be composed just of arguments of advance-ment; if they were, they wouldn’t be debates, but rather exchangesof unrelated ideas:

Speaker 1: Bananas are better than apples because they contain morepotassium.Speaker 2: Circles are better than squares because their shape is morepleasing to the eye.

What this “discussion” is missing is what in debate we call clash. Bothspeakers are advancing arguments, but their statements are unrelatedto each other. Clash is one of the fundamental principles of gooddebate; in fact, it is fundamental to any debate. Unless argumentsclash, there is no way to compare and adjudicate them. Debate dealswith arguments that are in dispute.

To dispute an argument effectively, you must master the skill ofrefutation. Arguments of refutation serve as a rejoinder to argumentsalready in play. Refutation is necessary in debates because it promotesdirect clash between arguments. You already know how to advancearguments; now, you need to learn how to refute arguments.

Just as questions have answers, arguments have answers calledrejoinders and responses. There are many ways to answer an argumentthat has been advanced. Of course, some methods are better than oth-ers. The first, and unfortunately most common, way of refuting anargument is simply to provide a counterclaim:

Speaker 1: Bananas are better than oranges because they contain morepotassium.Speaker 2: Speaker 1 says that bananas are better than oranges, but I dis-agree. Oranges are better than bananas.

Speaker 2 has simply provided a claim to counter the claim of the first

72


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 72

73


speaker. Who wins this debate? Clearly, Speaker 1 has the edge, sinceshe is the only debater to have actually provided a warrant for herclaim (“because they contain more potassium”). Good reasoningalways trumps no reasoning at all.

A more advanced method of refutation is to provide a warrant foryour counter-claim:

Speaker 1: Bananas are better than oranges because they containmore potassium.Speaker 2: Speaker 1 says that bananas are better than oranges, butI disagree. Oranges are better than bananas because they contain morevitamin C.

What makes this rejoinder better than Speaker 2’s previous attempt?Here, she is providing a warrant for her claim: “because they containmore vitamin C.” Imagine that you are asked to adjudicate this debate.How will you decide who wins? You find that Speaker 1 has proven con-clusively that bananas contain more potassium than oranges. You alsofind that Speaker 2 has proven that oranges contain more vitamin C thanbananas. Neither debater really has the edge here, do they? Notice thatwhile there is direct clash between the claim and the counterclaim, thereis no direct clash between the warrants for each. Speaker 2 has not yetsucceeded in completely refuting her opponent’s argument.

Complete refutation is important to decisively win when argumentsclash against each other in debate. In order to completely refute an argu-ment, you must include what we call a “therefore” component. The“therefore” component of an argument of refutation is where you explainwhy your argument trumps the argument of your opponent. Observe:

Speaker 1: Bananas are better than oranges because they containmore potassium.Speaker 2: Speaker 1 says that bananas are better than oranges, butI disagree. Oranges are better than bananas because they contain morevitamin C. Therefore, you should prefer oranges because while manyfoods in an ordinary diet contain potassium, few contain an appreciableamount of vitamin C. It is more important to eat oranges whenever pos-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 73

sible than it is to eat bananas.

Speaker 2 wins. She has completed the process of refutation by includ-ing a “therefore” component in her rejoinder. Notice how this last partof her argument works. She compares her warrant to Speaker 1’s war-rant to show why her argument is better than that of her opponent.Almost all refutation can follow the basic four-step method demon-strated above. As you practice your refutation skills, consider startingwith this model:

Step 1: “They say….” It is important to reference the argumentyou are about to refute so that your audience and judges can easily fol-low your line of thought. Unlike the bananas/oranges example above,debates contain many different arguments. Unless you directly refer-ence which of these arguments you are dealing with, you risk confusionon the part of your audience and judge, and confusion is seldom a goodtechnique for winning debates. Good flowing, or note-taking skills, willhelp you track individual arguments and the progression of their refu-tation. We’ll discuss how to take notes in the specialized form demand-ed by debates in the skills chapter.

One important thing to remember here is that when you refer toyour opponent’s argument, you should do so in shorthand. If you wereto repeat all of your opponent’s arguments, you wouldn’t have anyspeech time to advance arguments of your own. So try and rephrasethe argument you’re about to refute in just three to seven words tomaximize your speech time: “They say that reducing welfare benefitshelps the economy, but…;” or “They say Batman is better thanSuperman, but…”

Step 2: “But I disagree….” In this part of your refutation,you state the gist of your counter-argument. This can be, in the caseof the banana/orange controversy, simply the opposite of youropponent’s claim. It can also be an attack on the warrant or dataoffered for your opponent’s claim. The important thing is to stateclearly and concisely the counter-argument you want the judge toendorse. You can elaborate on it later. For now, it is important to

74


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 74

75


phrase your argument as concisely as possible. This tactic helpsyour judge, audience, and opponents to remember it and get it ontheir flows, or notes. Word economy is a very important skill for suc-cessful debaters. We will discuss this aspect of debate more in thechapter on skills.

Step 3: “Because ….”Having advanced your counter-argu-ment, you need to proceed to offer a warrant. Arguments of refutationneed to be complete, just like arguments of advancement. Your war-rant can be independent support for your counter-claim, as in the caseabove. It can also be a reasoned criticism of the opposition’s argument.

Step 4: “Therefore….” Finally, you need to draw a conclusionthat compares your refutation to your opponent’s argument and showswhy yours effectively defeats theirs. This conclusion is usually done bymeans of comparison, either of warrants or data or both. You need todevelop a variety of strategies for argument comparison and evalua-tion, as this is a critical skill for success in competitive debate. Whatyou need to accomplish here is to show that your argument is betterthan their argument because….

It’s better reasoned. Perhaps their argument makes some kind oferror in logic or reasoning, of the kind discussed earlier in thischapter.

It’s better evidenced. Maybe your argument makes use of more orbetter data. Perhaps your sources are better qualified than theirs,or your evidence is more recent than theirs.

It’s empirical. When we say that an argument is empirically proven,we mean that it is demonstrated by past examples. Perhaps yourargument relies on empirics, while theirs relies on conjecture orspeculation.

It takes theirs into account. Sometimes your argument may taketheirs into account and go a step further: “Even if they’re right

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 75

about the recreational benefits of crossbows, they’re still too dan-gerous for elementary school physical education classes.”

It has a greater expressed significance. You can state that yourargument has more significance than their argument because (forexample) it matters more to any given individual or applies moreto a larger number of individuals.

It’s consistent with experience. Perhaps your argument isconsistent with experience over time, a in different place, orin different circumstances. This technique is particularlyeffective with audiences: “Hey, this is something we can allrelate to, right?”

These are only some examples of techniques you can use for argumentcomparison. In this book and through your debate education, you willfind others.


1. Play a game of “I disagree.” Generate a series of claims of vari-ous types (fact, value, policy). Then refute each claim using thefour-step method. Try this exercise with a partner. Have one per-son generate claims while the other person refutes them. Afterten repetitions, switch roles.

2. Analyze the following excerpted arguments using the tools youhave acquired. • What is the main claim each author is advancing? What war-

rants do they offer to support their claims? What data dothey advance to back up these warrants?

• What kinds of reasoning does the author use to advancetheir claim?

• Construct two different refutations of the argument. Chooseeither the author’s main claim or one or more of their sub-claims or warrants.

76


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 76

77


a) “The United States of America should end its trade embargoagainst Cuba. The embargo violates the International Covenantandofarguably, the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT), ). The embargo is a policy of starvation that offends themoral sensibility of the world. In other situations, the USA claimsto be working against starvation and international isolation.Why, then, does it persist in its trade embargo toward the peo-ple of Cuba? Alfredo Duran of the Cuban Committee forDemocracy, has said that ‘the embargo hasn’t worked andeveryone knows it. The starvation in Cuba is what the embargohas created.’”

b) Education is vital for any civilized society. If citizens are notadequately and properly educated, they cannot be expectedto participate meaningfully in important decisions that affecttheir lives. Education also provides long-term economic ben-efits, both to individuals and to their society at large. Thisdoes not mean that education should be mandatory. In dem-ocratic societies, citizens should not be forced to attendschool if they choose not to do so. We do not require our cit-izens to quit smoking, even though that behavior would bebeneficial. Likewise, we do not require our citizens to workat a job, although they clearly suffer if they do not do so.Education should be treated in the same way. If we are trulya society committed to ensuring choice for our citizens, weshould end mandatory school attendance.

3. Using the four-step refutation model, refute each of the follow-ing simple claims:

• The government should increase regulation of the massmedia.

• The USA should lift its sanctions against the nation of Iraq. • Sunbathing causes cancer.• Drug testing violates individual privacy.• Environmental protection is more important than economic

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 77

growth.• Nations should open their borders to immigration.• Military spending is detrimental to society.• You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind

blows. • The debt of the third world should be forgiven.• Silence means consent.• Science is more dangerous than religion.• NATO intervention in Kosovo was misguided.

78


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 78

79

CHAPTER 4:

CASE

CONSTRUCTION

In the American and British debate formats, strategic planning andconstruction of the proposition case is essential for success. In theAmerican format, it appears that the proposition team has some

decided advantages because it has the first and last speeches in thedebate. Through interpretation of the motion, this team determines, tosome extent, the subject matter for the debate. The proposition teamestablishes the decision making framework for the debate.

There are fewer advantages for proposition teams in the British for-mat. The first proposition team presents a case to open debate on themotion. The second proposition team offers a case, which is understoodto be an extension of the original proposition position. In this way, theproposition teams enjoy the same advantages of the first propositionteam in the American format; namely, they initiate debate on the motionand design the debate’s framework.

Despite these obvious format advantages, there are substantial advan-tages for the opposition as well. The opposition may well be in a superiorposition in parliamentary debates. All things may not be equal.

In the American parliamentary format, the opposition has a timeadvantage during the debate. The opening speaker for the proposition has

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 79

seven minutes for her speech. During this time, the speaker must offer anentertaining introduction; define the motion; establish a decision makingframework; present a logical, organized case for the motion; and summa-rize the speech in a convincing conclusion. These duties mean that thefirst proposition speaker realistically has approximately five or five andone-half minutes to make a proof for the motion.

After the initial proposition presentation, the time advantage forthe balance of the debate shifts to the opposition team. The first propo-sition delivers her speech, with an effective five-minute argument forthe motion. The first speaker for the opposition has eight minutes torespond to the speech. The opening opposition speaker is able to argueefficiently, concentrating her arguments to precisely the weakest ele-ments of the case.

The second speaker for the proposition, also known as the Memberof Government, also has an eight-minute speech. This timing mighthelp right the imbalance of the first two constructive speeches, exceptfor the following opposition stand on the floor. At the conclusion of thesecond proposition speech, the opposition has two consecutive speech-es with a total of twelve minutes of speaking time (an eight-minute sec-ond opposition constructive speech followed immediately by a four-minute opposition rebuttal speech). These consecutive speeches, occu-pying as they do a considerable amount of time in the debate, areknown as the opposition block.

The opposition team has more than enough time to manage theargumentation from the second proposition speaker. And with atwelve-minute block of time, they can create a considerable amount ofhavoc for the final proposition speaker, who has but five minutes toanswer their arguments. In sum, the time advantage clearly favors theopposition team during the debate. This imbalance, with other factors,has traditionally led to a small but significant opposition bias in parlia-mentary debating in the USA. This bias may also occur in parliamen-tary debating with the American format outside the USA.

The British format gives the opposition a different advantage. Thefirst proposition team and second proposition team each introduce acase in the debate. The opening proposition team makes the originalinterpretation of the motion. The second proposition team extends the

80


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 80

81

CASE CONSTRUCTION AND NEGATION

interpretation of the motion and advances the issues in the debate. Ineach of these cases, however, the opposition has the final word in argu-ing the case. The second speaker for each of the first and second oppo-sition teams effectively closes argument on the proposition case. In thelatter case, the second speaker for the second opposition team has thefinal word in the debate.

This position is a significant advantage for the opposition. It is eas-ier to tear down than to build a case. Opposition arguments might onlyneed to target a single dysfunctional element of a case for a decisivevictory in a debate. The proposition team must usually defend everyelement of a logical proof in order to prove its side of the motion. Withthe last word on a case or in a debate, the opposition is in a powerfulposition in debates. Because of some important format advantages forthe opposition, the proposition team must take great care in the selec-tion, organization and execution of its case.

Preparation time prior to and during the debate

Technically, there is one preparation time period in parliamentarydebating – the period between the announcement of the motion and theopening presentation by the first proposition speaker. There are otheropportunities to prepare during the debate and those will be investi-gated as well.

Typically, debaters receive 15 minutes to prepare for debates after therevelation of a motion for debating. Usually this will be the full amount ofpreparation time available to the debaters. Sometimes, though, debaterswill have little or no knowledge of the motion itself nor the academic dis-cipline, subject field or public policy arena related to the topic. In thesecases, the participants muddle through as best they can, hoping to makea connection to the language of the proposition.

In the majority of circumstances, the debaters are sufficientlyfamiliar with the motion and related information to begin preparationin earnest. How should they prepare? There is no one, uniform guideto debate preparation. The language of the motion and the manner inwhich the motion connects to the knowledge base or academic inter-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 81

ests of the proposition team will influence preparation plans. There are,however, some general recommendations for preparation time:

• Teams should complete individual work and teamwork during prepa-ration time.

• Debate preparation should be comprehensive.

Proper preparation time management involves individual work andteamwork. Although it may be evident that preparation time shouldprovide opportunities for a proposition team to organize the openingcase and for the first speaker for the proposition to outline her speech’smajor lines of argument, it is less evident how a team may accomplishthese goals efficiently.

To be sure, some very experienced debaters, working with a regu-lar debate partner, have established a collaborative relationship inwhich they seem to have a symbiotic connection. Preparation timebrainstorming and organizational matters appear to be effortless. It ispossible to hope for this sort of cooperative interaction with a debatepartner, which brings us to the rest of the debating universe. You needmore than hope. You need an arrangement, an accommodation, withanother person to efficiently share the responsibilities of designingyour case and constructing your argument during preparation time.

Team collaboration should not trump individual analysis of themotion or case during preparation time. If there is a common errordebaters consistently make, it is sharing time for the full duration ofpreparation time. This error limits preparation time (more on debatemathematics in a moment). It might produce the most dreaded conse-quence of shared labor with your debate partner: groupthink. Alsoknown as tunnel vision, groupthink frequently occurs when the twoparties on a debate team share an agenda set by one of the parties.There is insufficient critical analysis of the issue, with no outside visionand no one to mirror or function as the opposing side. This errorinevitably narrows the task of generating ideas during preparation time(you produce fewer arguments) and fails to consider critical logic gapsin your arguments (you limit your ability to successfully anticipatearguments). Debaters with tunnel vision are more prone to the pro-

82


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 82

83


duction of unseen errors in case design – unseen, at least, until theopposing side gets a chance to listen to the first proposition speaker.

What should the proposition team do during preparation time?Our recommendation is for the members of the proposition team towork separately (individually) for a minute or so, carefully analyzingthe motion prior to a team discussion on case design for the forthcom-ing debate. The speakers then collaborate for a minute or two, sharingideas on interpretation of the motion and a successful case. At thispoint, the debaters work individually. The first speaker for the propo-sition should immediately begin preparation of the opening speech,generating lines of argument and organizing them for a coherent andentertaining address. At the same time, the second speaker for theproposition should begin preparation of her speech.

How should the second proposition speaker prepare her stand onthe floor? Is preparation possible without a fair hearing of the firstopposition speech? Of course, the proposition team’s second speakershould anticipate the opposing side’s likely strategy for the debate andprepare her arguments accordingly. This speaker should begin to ana-lyze the forthcoming debate from opposition’s perspective. This stepaccomplishes the following: (1) Preparation for the second speech. Thesecond speaker in the debate has little free time to craft an organizedand clever speech once the proceedings are underway. It is, quite obvi-ously, better to begin preparation in a less stressful environment. (2)Argument anticipation. The second speaker can identify potentialflaws or inconsistencies in the opening speaker’s argument using argu-ment anticipation techniques described above. This step is not due toany self-destructive urge on the second speaker’s part but rather anacknowledgement that she must adopt an oppositional stance. Instead ofcollaborating with her partner, she will be in a strong position to criti-cally investigate the logic of her partner’s case and have an opportuni-ty to expose problems with the case at the only time available for theirsimple and convenient correction, namely, the period of time before thedebate begins. Also, anticipating the opposition’s arguments allows thesecond speaker to advise her partner about potential changes or addi-tions to the first proposition speech.

After the individual preparation, the speakers need to join togeth-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 83

er and review ideas for several minutes. Sharing information at thispoint is particularly valuable, as the opportunity for some quiet timeand private deliberation on the motion has doubtlessly spurred cre-ativity, so there are plenty of new ideas on the table. The debaters usethe final few minutes of preparation time to complete the case outlineor second speaker’s replies to opposition points. The second speakermay have also found one or more clever ways to amplify or extend thearguments in the opening speech.

Debaters are advised to have and use an inexpensive digital timerfor preparation time management. Although many debaters develop aneffective “internal clock, ” a valuable skill, to be sure, for the properorganization of a speech with rigidly set time limits, it is easier to lookat the face of a timepiece or listen to its infernal beeping. It is too easyfor debaters to become distracted during preparation time. A digitalclock keeps debaters on task.

A sample 15-minute preparation period might look like the onebelow:

Individual assessment of the motion 1 minuteShared discussion of the motion 3 minutesIndividual preparation of speeches 5 minutesShared discussion of speech preparation 3 minutesFinal speech preparation 3 minutes

Debate teams should experiment with different times to accomplishthese tasks. They may be adjusted for different partners, motions orother circumstances.

There are ancillary benefits to this preparation model. It providesmore than 15 minutes of actual preparation time, with some timedevoted exclusively to the second speaker’s preparation. In our model,only six minutes of the 15-minute preparation period involve sharedtime. The remaining nine minutes involve individual work, meaningthat the team has essentially doubled its preparation time for nine min-utes of the period, bringing total preparation time to 24 minutes for theteam. Of equal importance is that a significant percentage of the nineindividual minutes allocated to the second speaker involve anticipating

84


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 84

85


arguments and preparing for her speech. The second speaker may haveas many preparation minutes prior to the debate as her speaking timeduring the debate.

When preparing for debate, you should carefully consider the bal-ance of issues on a motion. You ought to anticipate several of the mainlines of argument from the opposing side. Preparation time shouldinclude preparing speech introductions and conclusions, interpretingthe motion, and framing the debate and the elements of the case prop-er. Time should be devoted to speech structure and humor. In otherwords, preparation ought to be comprehensive. Notes on many ofthese matters, as well as preliminary information to support the factu-al material of a case, should be prepared in advance of the tournamentcompetition. Debaters might then refer to different kinds of informa-tion (that is, information on the public policy matter, debate practice,rejoinders to conventionally introduced arguments, as well as notes oninitiating humor and responding to heckles). Organizing some previ-ously briefed debate materials means that debaters will not have to“reinvent the wheel” before each debate. Notes might offer tacticalreminders for sound practice or serve to jog your memory on the factsof a particular case or opposition argument.

In an ideal model, members of a debate team would brainstorm theirideas and prepare speeches independently. Preparation would bothincrease the number of serious issues and provide depth of reasoning andevidence to each of the elements of proof. In this model, teams wouldhave 30 minutes of genuine preparation time, double the amount of offi-cially declared time for preparation, which provides a significant advan-tage over teams that are less efficient in their preparation period.Debaters should use the ideal as a standard, attempting to increase theirpreparation to 30 minutes. This is ideal, of course, but it is not readilyachieved. Debaters need time to inform partners of ideas, a task rarelyaccomplished in nanoseconds. Debaters might not succeed in expandingpreparation to a full 30 minutes, but they might get a lot closer than theconventional approach of shared time for 15 minutes.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 85

The Construction of the Proposition Case

Debates can be complex. The motions normally relate to fairly sophis-ticated philosophical, economic, social, political and cultural matters.Debaters introduce as many as a dozen major lines of argument in eachdebate, with accompanying examples. There are, in addition, a numberof less significant challenges presented in a round of debate, as well asback and forth during points of information (and, in the American for-mat, points of personal privilege or points of order). For more on par-liamentary points, please refer to the chapter by that name at the endof this book. There is some discussion of the appropriate guidelines forframing and deciding a debate; this is the meta-debate discussion (i.e.,“the debate about the debate”). Simple and elegant case design is a pro-found way to address the potential chaotic presentation of many dis-parate issues on a subject.

A conventional proposition case is based on a direct and appealingnarrative form – introduction, body and conclusion. It is a bit more dif-ficult to achieve in practice than in theory. The opening speaker for theproposition should include the following:

• A speech introduction.• An interpretation of the motion.• A framework for the debate.• A case proper that supports the motion.• A speech conclusion.

Introduction to the Speech

It is appropriate to use a speech introduction to establish your credibilitywith the judge and audience, create favorable expectations regardingyour performance and offer a powerful introduction to the subject matterof the case. Many academic parliamentary debaters, however, make aquite limited effort and provide rather trite introductions in the opening

86


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 86

87


proposition speech. All too often, the introduction is a perfunctory exer-cise, a quick round of “thanks” to the Speaker of the House, opposingside, colleague, and audience. At that point the proposition speaker mightsuggest that there is “a lot of work to do” and, thus, it is time to “jump intothe case.” This is not an interesting speech introduction, let alone one thatcan stand to be constantly repeated from debate to debate, tournament totournament, region to region.

It is well past time for parliamentary debaters to revise the intro-duction, providing meaningful presentations prior to a round ofthanks. For example, on the motion, “This House would right thewrongs,” a proposition team might argue for institutional legal checkson the presentation of eyewitness testimony. Although eyewitness tes-timony holds particular persuasive power over the decisions of jurorsand, therefore, the outcome of criminal trials, it is notoriously unreli-able. Thousands of individuals are wrongly convicted each year due tothe prosecution’s presentation of eyewitness accounts of crimes.

A first proposition speaker might offer the following introductionfor the case:

“There is no greater wrong, no greater injustice, no greater depri-vation of liberty than the wrongful conviction of an innocent per-son. When considering the circumstances leading to a wrongfulconviction, one is likely to imagine gross prosecutorial error ormisconduct. But the fact is that the leading cause of wrongful con-viction is the testimony that jurors hear from eyewitnesses.

Ladies and gentlemen, the proposition team has an opportuni-ty to address a disgraceful problem that victimizes thousands ofpeople annually. We do so with our support of the motion, ‘ThisHouse would right the wrongs.’ Thank you, Mister/MadameSpeaker.“

You could begin with a quick thank you to the Speaker of the House,a polite reply to her recognition of your speech. It would then beappropriate to thank others at the conclusion of the preamble of yourspeech.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 87

“Thank you, Madame/Mister Speaker. There is no greater wrong,no greater injustice, no greater deprivation of liberty than thewrongful conviction of an innocent person. When considering thecircumstances leading to a wrongful conviction, one is likely toimagine gross prosecutorial error or misconduct. But the fact isthat the leading cause of wrongful conviction is the testimony thatjurors hear from eyewitnesses.

Ladies and gentlemen, the proposition team has an opportuni-ty to address a disgraceful problem that victimizes thousands ofpeople annually. We do so with our support of the motion, ‘ThisHouse would right the wrongs.’ Thank you to participants and theassembled audience.“

The introduction should be brief. It should not replace the substantiveinformation in case proper. It should provide striking information toget the attention of the judge and audience, without undermining therhetorical power of the speech. An effective introduction provides apreview of the case without giving away the more salient issues in theopening 15 to 30 seconds. If the speech introduction offers too muchinformation, the opposing side will immediately begin preparing therefutation for their speeches, allowing the opposition more time forpreparation during the debate. In a typical debate ideas unfoldthroughout the proposition team’s opening speech, delaying the oppo-sition’s preparation of effective refutation strategies.

All speakers in a debate should have a speech introduction. It isevident that the opening speakers for the proposition and oppositionshould establish themselves in the debate before engaging an audience.Debaters may want to court favor with an audience through the use ofhumor in a speech introduction. There is nothing quite as powerful asmeeting the expectations of the assembled audience that they will beentertained during the round of debate.

Subsequent speakers in the debate should present introductionsthat will recall their debate partner’s speech. Too often, later speakersintroduce their presentations as a reaction to an opposing side’s preced-ing speech. This technique subtly shifts the debate’s focus to youropponent’s issues. The ideas that you want to present in the debate

88


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 88

89


might be lost along the way. It is better to establish your foundation forargument – the main lines of proof for your side or the issues neglect-ed by an opponent – before issuing a reactionary presentation. (Savethat fiery negation for the Guild Hall, talk radio, pulpit, or MasonicLodge.)

Interpretation of the Motion

The first speaker for the proposition team interprets the motion to givemeaning to it for the purpose of focused and informed debate. Withoutthis attention to detail in the opening speech, it is likely that the debatemotion would have a different meaning for different teams in thedebate. Language is abstract. Words’ meanings are not fixed andchange with the context of their use. (For more on this subject, consulta dictionary. A dictionary is a history of the use of words and includesnumerous understandings of individual terms over space and time.)

There are many potential interpretations of any given motion.Some of the possibilities are reasonable and might serve as a founda-tion for a powerful case on the motion. Other potential interpretationsare incoherent for debate, maniacal, or genocidal. For example, on themotion, “This House would significantly reduce free speech,” there area number of possibilities for the proposition.

• Reasonable interpretations:

Campaign finance reform: The proposition might argue forrestrictions on campaign advertising in the interest of “fair”elections.Group libel law: The proposition team would call for the extensionof libel laws for individuals to groups. This extension wouldrestrict false and malicious speech targeting racial, ethnic, religiousand other groups.Broadcast regulation: The proposition might advocate that thegovernment should restrict entertainment and other programmingto increase public service announcements and programming.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 89

• Incoherent interpretation:

Eliminate opposition speeches: The propositioncould demand a restriction on free speech by eliminat-ing the opposition speeches to its case in the debate.

• Maniacal interpretation

Muzzle all dogs: The proposition argues that dogs chan-nel demonic messages and, subsequently, their speechmust be curtailed. The opening speaker for the proposi-tion cites, as reference material for the case, the disturb-ing facts of the Son of Sam murders, as well as books onthe White House by former First Ladies Barbara Bushand Hilary Rodham Clinton, purporting to comment onpresidential life from a dog’s point-of-view.

• Genocidal interpretation

Eliminate political liberals: Political liberals supportfree speech. The proposition team might argue for anexecutive order or other governmental decree author-izing the detention or summary execution of politicalliberals with a history of free speech.

The proposition team is responsible for selecting a meaningful inter-pretation for debate. There are several options here for the propositionteam but many are unsavory or fail to focus the discussion in a coher-ent fashion. The proposition side of the motion is self-interested aboutthe interpretation of the motion, to be sure, but they are biased in theinterest of effective argumentation. They will not able to sustain a casewithout sophisticated lines of argument offering a proof for the motion.

The opposition team has no such interest. The opposing side is notconcerned, in the same manner as the proposition team, about the suc-cessful interpretation of the motion. If the motion is dysfunctional, it is

90


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 90

91


a simple matter for the side opposing the motion to win the debate.This is a primary reason that the interpretation of the motion ought toremain, with few, if any, reservations, within the exclusive control ofthe proposition side. Additional possibilities and limitations on theinterpretation of motions are listed in the chapter on topic interpreta-tion (Chapter 2).

Framing the Debate

Debaters compete to win debates. Framing a debate, a technique ofargument contextualization, is a tool to increase the probability ofproposition victories. With framing, the opening speaker for the propo-sition team creates a context for the appreciation and resolution ofargumentation. Framing is done for three primary reasons:

• It is a gatekeeper matter.• It anticipates argument comparison for the rebuttal and latter speeches

of the debate.• It establishes a context for the judge’s decision making.

Gatekeeper ideas can be powerful tools in contest debates. A gatekeeperargument is one that determines if other arguments are permitted to enterthe debate. In this way, the gatekeeper argument allows some ideas in(presumably, ideas favorable to your side of the motion) and keeps otherarguments out (the challenges from your opponents). For example, theinterpretation of a motion operates as a gatekeeper issue. The propositionteam’s interpretation, if sustained, eliminates other, competing interpreta-tions of the motion in a debate. This technique compels the opposition todebate the issues initiated by the proposition team. On the motion, “ThisHouse would restrict the authority of the World Trade Organization inone or more areas,” a proposition team could interpret the motion to dis-cuss new restrictions on WTO authority to improve international envi-ronmental regulations. This interpretation opens the gate for a discussionof free trade and environmentalism and at the same time, closes the gateon debate on labor law, telecommunications, and other issues that mightconceivably be part of a general discussion on WTO regulatory power.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 91

The opening speaker for the proposition team should be able to frameor contextualize the debate to limit the possibilities for argument from theopposing side. The first speaker accomplishes this task by stating the pointof the controversy for the proposition side of the motion and subtly settinga refutation argument agenda for the opposition. In other words, the open-ing speaker claims to establish a proof for the motion in a particular wayand suggests to the judge the argument options available to the opposingside to dispute the claims of the proposition’s case. For example, on themotion, “This House would limit military intervention against terrorists,”the proposition might make a case to stop British and American bombingcampaigns in Afghanistan. The opening speaker for the proposition side ofthe motion might argue that his team will prove that the bombing cam-paign has three serious negative consequences: (1) It creates a false senseof security about anti-terrorist policies, making it less likely that govern-ments will initiate comprehensive anti-terrorist policies in a timely manner;(2) It produces regional instability and threatens to destabilize Pakistan, anuclear nation; and (3) It has led to a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan,as the bombing campaign has disrupted the shipment of food and otherrelief supplies. The proposition speaker might add the following to “frame”the issue as a gatekeeper device: “Each of these claims is an independentproof of the our interpretation of the motion for debate. If we are able toprove any of these issues, we will have successfully accomplished the goalof demonstrating a proof for the motion. The opposition team must refuteeach of these claims to disprove the case in the debate.” This rhetoricrestricts argumentation to any of these three issues in the debate. Itattempts to narrow the options for the opposing side, by insisting that theopposition team defeat all of the proposition team’s arguments to have achance of success.

Framing anticipates the comparison of issues at the latter stages ofthe contest. Ideas are introduced in the debate with a particular goal inmind: the effective relative comparison of the arguments’ merits at theconclusion of a round of debate. The outcome of a debate necessarilyinvolves the relative positioning of teams. In the American and othertwo-team formats, debates are zero-sum contests and one team is des-ignated a winner and the other team the loser. In British and other for-mats with more than two teams in a single round of debate, the out-

92


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 92

93


standing team is ranked first, with lesser teams in the debate receivingcorrespondingly lower rankings. Because teams are evaluated on theirrelative achievement (that is, a higher ranking or a win is awardedbased on a comparison to the performances of the other competitors),it is simply not enough to have an opinion in a debate. You must havethe best possible expression of an opinion and your opinion musttrump the opinions of the other participants in the contest.Achievement in debates, therefore, requires comparing the stances ofeach of the competing teams.

Debaters should anticipate their final stands on the floor and planaccordingly. It is not enough to know how to begin a debate. We know,for example, that any and all ideas are subject to disagreement and dis-putation. We know that it is inevitable that debaters will present oppos-ing viewpoints on the subject matter of a motion. For us, this does notfully describe debate. Debate does not concern itself exclusively withdisputing facts or informed opinion. Clash on factual issues is a neces-sary, but not sufficient condition for debate. The art of debate is aboutthe effective resolution of facts and opinions already in dispute.

Debaters should frame issues for comparison at the conclusion ofdebates. As experienced competitors know, what matters is not howdebates begin but how they end. Judges are persuaded by the finalstands on the floor, the manner of resolution of contested issues.Framing ideas by anticipating the “end game,” introducing argumentsin a debate to move both you and your opponent to an inevitable con-clusion favoring your side of the motion, is a valued skill of the experi-enced competitor.

Framing might also be used to influence the judge’s decision mak-ing. In some parliamentary formats and leagues, most notably in someregions within the USA, debaters present formal decision-making cri-teria to assist the judge. This is hardly done as a favor to judges. Thereason they give assistance to judges is to set the decision-making agen-da for the judge, another way to tilt the debate toward one’s side for themotion.

Debaters are fond of presenting an exclusive decision-making cri-terion to a judge for a debate. (Although it is typically a single evalua-tive instrument, the overwhelming majority of debaters refer to the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 93

issue by the plural, as “criteria.” This is somewhat confusing for inex-perienced debaters, who are always waiting for the other shoe to drop.When will the proposition team present a second or third decisionmaking tool? The use of the term “criteria” in this context is admitted-ly vexing for the last three standing Latin scholars in the USA as well.)The criterion may be a statement of a valued principle: “The issues ofthe debate should be considered through the lens of Rawls’ conceptionof justice.” “Privacy interests of the individual are of utmost impor-tance. They are essential to the protection of other political and socialrights. As such, this debate must involve an exclusive assessment ofissues from the position of privacy interests.”

The decision-making criterion may involve general guidelines for ajudge’s consideration of the debate’s arguments. Debaters often call forjudges to decide debates on “the preponderance of the evidence” or “acost-benefit calculus.” These proof standards mirror decision makingin civil trials or regulatory agencies.

Decision-making criteria educate inexperienced judges about theirresponsibilities as judges. They encourage judges to evaluate thedebate on the issues raised by debaters, rather than on personal preju-dices about the motion. They may also subtly support the logic of aproposition team’s case. If the proposition team has a case that suggeststhat the government of a country could take a small action that wouldproduce a large benefit, it is, quite obviously, in the interest of thatteam to argue that a judge should evaluate the debate based on theoverall policy advantages (that is, a cost-benefit calculation of somesort). If a proposition team, on the other hand, has a case that relies onfactual material generally thought to be beyond serious dispute, it is inthe interest of the team to employ a decision making criterion on “thepreponderance of the evidence,” as it is unlikely that the opposing sidewill be able to disprove the factual foundation of the case.

The problem for proposition teams using this framing strategy isthe exclusive use of a single criterion for decision making. Decisionmaking is complex. Many factors are involved in reaching a conclusivedecision. Even a relatively modest decision, for example, ordering foodin a restaurant, involves a series of important decisions. A personordering a meal in a restaurant would not use price alone as a basis for

94


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 94

95


making a decision. (“The quality and taste of the food do not matter,just bring me the cheapest item.”) Nor would a diner base a decisionexclusively on a food’s taste, presentation, nutritional content or anoth-er factor. It is the combination of these decision-making elements thatlead to an action.

Debate decisions are even more complex. The issues of a debatemay involve sophisticated discussions of comprehensive public policyreform. They might involve multiple actors and stakeholders. Theymight operate in national and international contexts. A single, exclu-sive criterion probably does a disservice to the kind of decision that isrequired to evaluate a debate.

Additionally, the proposition team would like to achieve victory ina debate on any issue that might ultimately support its side of themotion. It probably does not matter to the proposition side if they winthe debate on an issue they have initiated or on a matter that was intro-duced in the debate by the side opposing the motion. An exclusive cri-terion (that is, a request that the judge should consider only those argu-ments that support one perspective on the motion, for example, “liber-ty interests”) might too narrowly limit the proposition team in a debate,reducing their potential for success by taking off the table issues onwhich they could win.

Constructing the Case Proper

A case is a set of arguments that supports a logical proof for a motion.The case proper refers to the substantive matter of the debate directlyproviding support for the motion, rather than any preamble to the caseor meta-discussion appropriately framing the material substance of thedebate.

The majority of parliamentary cases, in all debating formats, couldgenerally be described as policy cases. A policy case endorses a spe-cific public policy reform. The opening speaker for the propositiondoes this in a two-stage process, a logical construction that both iden-tifies a problem and proposes a solution to the problem. In otherwords, the proposition team offers a case that attempts to correct aserious economic, social or political problem.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 95

With this case form, the proposition team constructs a compari-son between the status quo and a hypothetical future. The openingspeaker for the proposition identifies core problems of the status quo.The status quo is said to be a description of extant policies and insti-tutional structures. (It is important for debaters to recognize thatthere is no “status quo.” It is a fiction. Policy is not unchanging,unyielding or static. Institutions can and do change their policies.New administrative regulations are adopted and rescinded on a reg-ular basis. Political changes [e.g., new presidents, prime ministersand cabinet or military leaders] will necessarily lead to policyreforms, even in those circumstances in which the core governmentalinstitutions do not change.)

The proposition establishes a comparison between dysfunctionalinstitutions and a hypothetical future, i.e., a plan of action producinga better world. In the expression of the difference between the worldin which we actually live and the world in which we ought to reside,the proposition team is able to identify benefits associated with itsadvocated position in the debate.

The speaker has certain obligations in order to prove the legitima-cy of the case. The speaker must first identify a problem. Debaters areaware of many of the world’s problems, social crises, and other calami-ties. But what are the constituent elements of a problem? You’ll needto know these to offer a proof that an intractable problem does indeedexist. There are two. A condition is said to be a problem if it is (1)ongoing with (2) serious negative repercussions.

Debate terminology for these conditions includes the concept ofinherency, which involves an examination of the ongoing nature ofproblems. If an issue is no longer a contemporary economic, social orpolitical matter, it is not a problem. Few people today are worriedabout the potential of forced conscription to participate in theCrusades. (We are likely to worry about those few people made nerv-ous about that possibility.) But many individuals are concerned withincreasing cycles of violence and intolerance in the Middle East.Considering the ongoing nature of the matter, the former is not a prob-lem but the latter most definitely is.

Negative repercussions are often identified as matters of signifi-

96


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 96

97


cance. The significance of an issue reveals its qualitative and quantita-tive dimension. For example, how seriously does the issue profoundlyaffect the life of an individual and how many individuals are troubledby this matter? The more an issue bothers a person and the more livesare touched by that matter, the greater the problem.

In a debate, you should include an explanation of the ongoingnature of a problem and the degree of its significance. It is not neces-sary to include formal debate jargon while undertaking these tasks in aspeech, but it is important that you (and by extension, your audience)understand the elements of a problem. This knowledge is the only wayto ensure that you will have a comprehensive and logical presentationof a proof. In addition, the logic of the construction provides somebasic structure to a speech. It assists the speaker to organize her com-ments for easy understanding by a judge or audience.

After establishing the foundation of a problem, the speaker pro-poses a solution. The argument involving the solution to a problem isknown as solvency. Once again, it is not necessary to use debate jar-gon in an actual debate to discuss arguments involving solutions.Jargon and technical speech are frequently an inelegant form of com-munication and can also confuse an audience unused to the terminolo-gy. It is, however, helpful to be familiar with technical debate speech,if only to understand an opponent who might use such language.

The solution to a problem should be well defined and technicallyfeasible. (We know that in your private affairs, you prefer magic, ouijaboards, tarot, palmistry and other “psychic arts” to accomplish yourtasks. Debate judges tend to be skeptical of these solutions.) A com-prehensive solution to a problem should include a plan of action andsufficient argumentation and information to sustain the claim that theplan adequately fixes the problem.

The plan is the formal expression of a solution to a problem. Itshould be brief but sufficient to provide a meaningful solution to theidentified problem. The plan is generally a summary of model legisla-tion, agency or executive action, a sample court decree, etc., that wouldsuccessfully address the problem.

A plan might answer the following questions regarding agency,scope of regulatory authority and implementation:

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 97

• Who will do it?• What are they required to do?• How will they accomplish their goals?

Answers to these questions will satisfactorily address the issues regard-ing a solution to a problem, at least for the purposes of initiating debateon the matter. The proposition team should identify one or more of theparties responsible for an action, describe the scope of their authority,and discuss the manner of policy implementation. As for the latterissue, the proposition team ought to demonstrate that like policies, per-haps identical ones, have been previously adopted in other jurisdictionsor in the same political jurisdiction on a different occasion in the past.

On the motion: “This House would legalize one or more recre-ational drugs,” a proposition team might argue for the decriminaliza-tion of marijuana in the USA. They could identify the responsible par-ties for decriminalization (federal and state governments), examine thescope of their authority (rescinding all legislation criminalizing posses-sion of marijuana and substituting a system of civil fines for public pos-session of the drug or behavior under the influence of the drug andmake available drug rehabilitation programs for those with more thanone civil violation), and discuss successful policy implementation (pre-vious decriminalization efforts and one state, Alaska, has legislationthat might serve as a successful model for the plan).

There may be ancillary advantages to a plan of action. The open-ing proposition speaker may discuss the scope of a problem, its pro-posed solution and additional benefits. For example, a propositionteam might argue for a single-payer system of national health insurancein the USA. The reason for the proposal might be to offer a proof forthe motion that “This House would bring them in.” A proposition teammight construe this motion to be a reference to those individuals cur-rently without health insurance or underinsured. The case may bebased on principles of equality but might have the additional benefit ofspurring health and medical research, as more stakeholders in the pub-lic health care system makes it easier for investors to commit funds tohealth research and development, because the addition of tens of mil-

98


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 98

99


lions of new health and medical consumers is likely to add to the pay-offs of future research and development.

In addition to the policy case, there are other case models used inparliamentary debates. Some debaters use what might be described asa fact case. This case offers a proof for a so-called proposition of fact,a case that is difficult to prove and, if successfully proven, impossibleto dispute. (This is the nature of “facts.” The problem with facts is thatthey are “incontrovertible.” They are, by definition, not subject to dis-putation and are therefore anathema to debate.) The other problem isthe prohibition on the use of published material during a parliamentarydebate. Facts cannot be verified in the course of a parliamentarydebate. This situation creates a condition in which the judge, too often,is called on to insert her judgment for that of arguing debaters, decid-ing the outcome of the debate on the “facts she knew” before listeningto the speeches. This judgment vitiates the point of debating. It is bet-ter for the authors of motions and proposition teams to avoid the factmotion or case entirely.

Debaters may also present a value case on a value motion. Thismatter has been discussed in some detail in the chapter on topics andtheir interpretation. The value case provides a proof for the motion insupport for a particular value. On the motion, “Give me liberty or giveme death,” the first speaker for the proposition team would identifyreasons and evidence to support the value of liberty, in direct contrastwith the value of life.

There are some problems with most value motions and cases thatpurport to support those motions. Each value claim, liberty, for exam-ple, is packed with multiple meanings, some of them contradictory.(We suppose this compression of meanings makes sense for issues thathave been debated for thousands of years.) It is difficult to discussthese issues in the abstract because of the differing understandings thataccompany the use of value terms. In addition, each value claim incor-porates the elements of other value claims. Life includes a liberty inter-est, as death typically interferes with the appreciation of civil and polit-ical liberties. Liberty incorporates life interests, because one is morelikely to face arbitrary death in conditions of tyranny and slavery. It isnearly impossible to identify the exclusive “core” of a value claim for

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 99

the purpose of focused debate. In other words, each side of a debate onthe matter of liberty versus life ultimately seems to endorse both liber-ty and life interests. Of course, many values do not necessarily trade offwith each other. It is possible to advocate two or more values in sup-port of an idea (for a thought experiment, identify at least two valuesthat are used to support any public policy). Many artificially con-structed value motions, intending to produce a clash of values, merelyconfound participants who spend an entire debate trying to identify theArchimedian disputation point to begin serious debating.

Although it is now disfavored in parliamentary debate communi-ties, the time-space case is important to note. This case attempts toanalyze the basis of decision making by “moving” the debate to anoth-er time or place. It involves role playing for the debaters. In the shift ofthe debate through imagined time or space, typically a move to thepast, debaters revisit historically influential decisions. On the motion,“This House would ban the bomb,” a proposition speaker might makethe following time-space introduction:

“It is 1945. The USA and Japan are locked in brutal strugglesthroughout the Pacific. This debate will examine the final stages ofthe war and the proposition will argue that the USA should not useatomic bombs on Japanese cities. The judge will evaluate thedebate from the perspective of the decision-maker at the time,President Harry Truman. The proposition, as noted, will argueagainst the use of the atomic bombs. The opposing side should takethe role of Truman’s military and political advisers who favored theuse of these devices. No material information revealed after August1945 should be permitted in the debate.”

The primary challenge associated with time-space case is that it isimpossible to discern which knowledge comes from any single histori-cal period and which arguments and ideas might spill over to anothertime. Quite often, it is extraordinarily difficult for debaters to fulfilltheir roles in a meaningful way. Of course, moving the debate to anoth-er time or place reduces the knowledge base of debaters, whoinevitably know more about the world they live in than about any

100


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 100

101


potential parallel world that might be discussed. It may, in fact, be better to have a more contemporaneous discus-

sion. In this example, the speaker calls for the excision of facts after1945. Wouldn’t debates be improved with more, rather than less, infor-mation? The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are contro-versial events today but there is new evidence to bolster the case foreither side of a motion on the justification of the attack. The debate canbe fully engaged in the current period, with additional informationafter 1945 used to support fresh views on the event.

The time-space case has lost much of its former popularity. It is nolonger a staple of debate teams and you might compete for years andnever personally experience the traditional form of case. There is, how-ever, a time-space element that persists in parliamentary debating. Itpertains to the definition of “this House” in debates.

In many debates, the interpretation of the phrase “This House” isuncontroversial. The “House” is the debating chamber. The partici-pants in the debate try to persuade the House to vote for or against amotion on the floor. In tournament competition, there is usually a des-ignated voting representative for the House, namely a single judge or apanel of judges. In practical terms, the person or persons judging thedebate, formally deliberating on the motion, are the House.

A number of debaters define “This House” to mean somethingother than the debating chamber and its deliberative membership. Inthese cases, the first proposition speaker moves the debate from itslocation to another place (occasionally, but infrequently, another time).The proposition speaker might define the House as the “UnitedNations,” “European Union,” “International Criminal Court,”“Government of Costa Rica,” “Saddam Hussein” or any other decisionmaker. The speaker expects that the debate will proceed in the contextof a decision by that selected actor. For example, if the House isdefined as the “U.S. Federal Government,” the debate will only con-sider the motion from the perspective of the jurisdictional authority ofthe USA. Although not popularly known as a time-space case, thisapproach functions in precisely the same way as the traditional time-space model.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 101

Suggested Exercise:

Debaters should take a motion and construct a model opening speechfor the proposition side of the motion, including introduction, interpreta-tion of the motion, framing, case proper, and conclusion. This exerciseshould be repeated using any of the sample topics from the selection inthe back of this book.

The Speech Conclusion

Like the introduction, debaters should deliver a powerful final com-ment in support of its side of the motion. A concluding remark of nomore than 10 or 15 seconds ought to summarize the relative positionsof the teams in the debate, identify a consistent and powerful themeassociated with the presentation of the case, or remind the judge andaudience of the serious and salient matters under consideration. Thistechnique will leave the judge with a final persuasive appeal for thecase, rather than a perfunctory or pro forma conclusion, namely “I begto propose/oppose.” Don’t beg. It is unseemly.

102


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 102

103

CHAPTER 5:

ARGUING

AGAINST THE

PROPOSITION CASE

Basic Opposition to the Case

The opposition team is able to challenge the proposition casewith both direct and indirect refutation. We discuss indirectrefutation in the chapters on disadvantages, counterplans, and

critiques. This chapter discusses how to engage in direct oppositionalrefutation. Direct refutation involves specific challenges to the argu-ments in the opening proposition speech. The opposition argumentsthat specifically address the major lines of proof of the first propositionspeaker are called case arguments or “on-case” arguments. They fun-damentally challenge the original case position.

There are, however, a number of issues in a debate that might berelevant to the discussion but do not have a corollary in the propositionteam’s opening remarks. After all, the proposition team tries to put onits best face in the opening speech. The proposition case includes the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 103

outstanding arguments for a proof of the motion and little else. Theproposition team does not present information that might do harm toits position. There are, inevitably, many issues excluded, or even self-censored, by the proposition team. The opposing side may wish tointroduce one or more of these otherwise excluded ideas into thedebate. In addition, the opposition might choose to present major argu-ments – disadvantages, counterplans, and critiques – that are premisedon the proposition case but move well beyond the case text. Theseideas are often known as “off-case” arguments, because they are notfound within the text of the proposition team’s case arguments.

The opposition team ought to counter the substantive material ofthe proposition team’s case. It is not necessary to disagree with each ofthe major elements of proof of a case. Strategic agreement, a sound tac-tic for the opposition, is a method of argument by which the opposingside concedes one or more of the proposition side’s arguments in orderto advance their own interests in the debate.

Agreement might focus the debate on more salient matters. Forexample, a speaker might agree to relatively modest claims that serveas a distraction for them and the judge. If a case supports restrictionson immigration, the proposition side might argue that closing nationalborders could (1) improve security against terrorists who would poten-tially use weapons of mass destruction and (2) save some administra-tive costs for government processing of immigrants. The advantages ofthis case might fairly be described as a battleship pulling a dinghy. Theformer advantage could affect the lives of tens of thousands or millionsof people. The latter one is modest and might save some money, whichpoliticians would surely waste on improving their salary structure. It isperhaps a better approach for the opposition team to cut off the propo-sition team’s dinghy, simply ignoring the relatively modest advantageof unspectacular savings of government administrative expenditures inorder to concentrate their rhetorical resources on the more significantissues related to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

An argument concession might permit the opposition side to pres-ent another and more compelling idea in the debate. Disadvantages arean apt example. Many disadvantages presume that a plan of action issuccessfully implemented but that it has grave and (at least for the

104


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 104

105

ARGUING AGAINST THE PROPOSITIONAL CASE

proposition team) unseen consequences. For example, a propositionteam might support the adoption of mandatory helmet laws for motor-cyclists. The opposition might concede the proposition team’s argu-ment that the law could be successfully enforced (i.e., after the adop-tion of a mandatory helmet law, the overwhelming majority of motor-cyclists would wear helmets). The opposition team might concede thatmore motorcyclists would wear helmets so that they could subse-quently make a rejoinder that new research on motorcycle helmet lawsdemonstrates that mandatory use increases injury and death becausehelmeted riders develop a false sense of security and take more risks.

Debaters will inevitably disagree with some elements of the propo-sition team’s case. If the opposition team confronts a policy case (themajority of parliamentary debate cases), it may want to challenge anyof the case elements describing the extant problem and the proposedsolution. These include the issues of inherency, significance, and sol-vency, concepts describing the nature of the problem and its solution.

To challenge the proposition team’s inherency argument, that is,the proof that a problem is ongoing, the opposition team will want tooffer an explanation for the failure to implement the proposition team’sproposal. The risks of policy failure associated with the plan might beone reason that well-intentioned individuals have yet to act in accor-dance with the proposition team’s suggested reform. The oppositionmight also argue that more study is required before one should attemptpolicy action.

Of course, the opposition might also identify other causes of the prob-lem. The suggestion of another reason for the problem, an alternate causal-ity, undermines the claim that a particular institutional flaw is responsiblefor the problem. For example, the proposition team might claim there is anongoing crime problem and propose a guaranteed annual income to allevi-ate the cause of crime – that is, poverty. If the opposition is able to identifyother major causes of crime (family violence, intercultural prejudices, drugabuse and sociopathologies), then they will be able to demonstrate that theproblem is unrelated to the cause identified by the proposition team. Thepurpose of this line of argument is to show that the problem is not amenableto reform by the plan.

The opposition team may choose to refute the significance or

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 105

harms of the case. This text includes some additional tactics for argu-ing impact assessments and issues of significance in the chapter ondebate skills. Basically, there are three primary strategies for refutingclaims of significance:

• The opposition team may attempt to minimize an argument.• The opposition team may turn or capture an argument.• The opposition team may choose to answer an argument.

Arguments have different expressions of qualitative and quantitativesignificance. Some issues matter a great deal to an individual. In otherwords, they have qualitative dimension. For example, the wrongfulincarceration of a person is a grave matter. The loss of a job due to racediscrimination is a compelling violation of individual liberty. As seriousas these conditions may be for any single person, however, the arbi-trary loss of liberty for a single individual may not be a sufficient rea-son to reform the entire criminal justice system. Some expressions ofsignificance have qualitative authority but do not have quantitativedimension. They are serious matters, indeed, but relatively inconse-quential to comprehensive reform of a public policy field.

Other expressions of significance might apply to a large number ofpeople but have relatively little consequence. A modest increase in theprice of a postage stamp or additional waiting time for public transporta-tion may affect the lives of tens of millions of individuals, but the degreeof disruption in people’s lives is so modest that it could not be said todescribe a serious problem. A debater might minimize a significant argu-ment, i.e., an argument describing a harm or benefit, by identifying theway it fails to prove that it has both qualitative and quantitative scope.

It is possible to compare the qualitative and quantitative measure of anargument with the qualitative and quantitative measure of another argu-ment. Debaters should evaluate the commensurable outcomes of theirlines of argument. If, for example, a proposition team suggests a publicpolicy reform that would save 1,000 lives and the opposition team is ableto demonstrate that the same policy will cost 10,000 lives, it is quite obvi-ous that the opposition team should contrast the advantage of the policyand disadvantage of the policy in like or commensurable terms: number of

106


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 106

107


lives saved.) Debaters may also evaluate incommensurable ideas. Pleasesee the section in Chapter 10 on impact assessment for a comprehensivedescription of debating incommensurable values and policies.

In addition to minimization, the opposition team may turn or capturean opponent’s argument. An argumentative turn is a technique in which adebater takes an argument from a team arguing one side of a motion andmakes the claim that the argument is better suited to support the opposingside (their side) of the motion. This is a highly effective argument strategybecause it does not necessarily resist or refute the material substance of anopponent’s argument. In its most effective form, this tactic “spins” theopposing side’s issue. When you turn an opponent’s argument, you takeone of their arguments and proceed to use it for your own purposes, usu-ally by showing that it better supports your side of the motion.

There are two types of turns: link turns and impact turns. A link turnis a claim that a causal connection (or “link”) for an argument better sup-ports the opposing side of the topic. For example, a proposition team mightargue for a motion to increase the war on drugs, with the expressed pur-pose to reduce criminal drug use. The opposing side might respond thatthe war on drugs paradoxically increases criminal drug use, as it forcesdrug users, particularly novice users, to associate with criminal drug deal-ers to purchase recreational drugs. These new associations would increasethe possibility of new and inexperienced users being recruited as drug sell-ers or couriers. It also initiates drug users to a world of lawbreakers whomight lead them into other criminal activity. In this case, the oppositionteam agrees with the proposition team’s premise. Both teams are interest-ed in reducing criminal drug use. The fundamental difference in the teams’position is that the opposition team makes the claim that the war on drugsis responsible for increasing criminal drug use. The increase in the war ondrugs, therefore, is likely to concomitantly increase criminal drug use,rather than reduce it. The opposition team, by agreeing with the proposi-tion case, has successfully identified an error in causal reasoning and isable to turn the argument to theiradvantage.

An impact turn is an argument that reverses the claims associatedwith an argument’s impact or outcome. For example, a proposition teammight argue about the risks associated with nuclear proliferation. Theymight suggest that proliferation is destabilizing and leads to the possibility

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 107

of nuclear conflict. The opposition team might reply that proliferation isactually a valued public policy rather than a reason for fear. The opposi-tion speaker would claim that the history of effective nuclear deterrenceamong major nuclear powers for the 50 years of the Cold War, despite con-siderable antagonism and high-stakes international conflicts, proves thatnuclear proliferation increases stability and reduces the potential fornuclear conflict. In addition, the team might argue that nuclear prolifera-tion would also deter the use of chemical, biological, and conventionalweapons, making conflict dramatically less likely with new nuclearregimes. In this case, the opposition team is able to reverse the standing ofthe issue of significance in the debate. That which was “bad” is now deter-mined to be “good.” There is additional information on link turns andimpact turns in Chapter 7 on disadvantages.

In the event that your opponent introduces a relevant argumentthat has a substantial degree of significance and cannot be turned, it isthen necessary to answer the argument. Many effective debate argu-ments are supported by examples. The most effective counter is todirectly refute the examples initiated by your opponent.

Examples may be nullified with counterexamples. These countersshould match the original example in scope. In other words, the oppositionteam has a duty to provide appropriate counterexamples that consider thescale of the proposition team’s examples and try to either (1) directly matchor exceed the significance of the original example in the same area ofinquiry (e.g., the opposition could use an example of a favorable militaryintervention to counter a claim of an unfavorable military adventure) or (2)make analogies to counterexamples in other fields (e.g., the oppositionmight argue about regulatory excess in environmental policies to counter aproposition team advocating new regulations in consumer product safety).

There are additional challenges to examples: They ought to be repre-sentative or typical of the analytical claims made by the proposition team.They should express significance. They ought to reveal that problems canbe resolved and are not intractable. There should be sufficient examples toprove the core elements of a motion. It is also possible for the oppositionteam to counter the solvency claims of the proposition. Will the proposedsolution resolve the problem? Alternate causality arguments could effec-tively undermine a proposition team’s claim that they have proposed the

108


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 108

109


correct solution to a discrete problem. The opposition team might careful-ly examine the elements of the plan. Have they identified the appropriateagent, with the necessary legal jurisdiction and resources, to successfullyadminister the proposed reform? Does the agent have sufficient legalauthority, expressed in the mandates of action provisions of the plan, tocarry out its mission? Are there difficulties that might occur during pro-gram implementation? Are there sufficient constituent groups to sustainthe program in the long term? Would any social groups opposing the planor any other party engage in a backlash against new policy initiatives?These questions might produce a significant number of objections to thetechnical implementation and ultimate success of a policy proposal.

On a cautionary note, the opposition team should exercise consid-erable care when introducing inherency and solvency arguments intothe debate. The proposition team’s inherency argument explains thatthere is an ongoing problem. That team argues that no agent is effec-tively moving to adopt the suggested plan. Too frequently, the opposi-tion replies to this position in a reactionary manner, indicating thatthere is some movement in the direction of the proposition policy, thatgovernment or private interests endorse or otherwise adopt elements ofthe proposition plan. Rather than helping the opposition cause, thesearguments are likely to undermine it.

The best position for the opposition is to argue that the propositioncase is “bad.” By that, we mean that the proposition makes a case thatis an expression of a “good.” It is not an effective counter to say thatthe case may not be good enough. If the proposition team lowers theiroriginal expectations (that is, they are not “good enough”) but they arestill superior to the opposition team, who would logically prevail in adebate? The proposition team. The opposition team should show thatthe proposition is counterproductive, dangerous or demonic. On theoccasions that the opposition team defends a position that suggestsmovement in the direction of the proposition position in the debate,they are unable to credibly argue that movement in the direction of theproposition team’s advocated position is a bad idea.

In addition, strong opposition arguments, such as the disadvantage,may rely on the successful implementation of the proposition team’s plan.The better arguments for the opposition presume that the plan comes into

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 109

fruition but is a bad idea. If the opposition team argues (usually, with sol-vency arguments) that the plan is not fully implemented, it may limit theintroduction of arguments that presume that the plan is both implementedand counterproductive. Debaters should be careful to introduce inherencyand solvency arguments that do not contradict the substantive material ofother powerful and effective opposition strategies.

Suggested Exercise:

In Appendix 4, you will find a transcript of the opening speeches for theproposition and the opposition sides of the motion: “This House should returnthe goods.” Debaters should work as individuals or in small groups on the fulltext of a speech or a speech section, analyzing it for (1) the five elements ofa narrative construction of a proposition case, including introduction, inter-pretation, framing, case proper, and conclusion; (2) effective opposition argu-mentation, identifying argument typologies; (3) speech structure and argu-ment organization; and (4) argument clash.

Structuring Opposition Arguments to the Case

Just as it is important to make good arguments against the propositionteam’s case, it is also important to structure your opposition argumentsappropriately to maximize their effectiveness. Appropriate structure is par-ticularly important for the arguments made in the constructive speech ofthe first opposition speaker, because these arguments frame the rest of thedebate on the proposition team’s case. There are at least two faulty andmutually exclusive strategies employed by the first opposition speaker:

The undifferentiated mass. Sometimes the lead opposi-tion speaker will advance her arguments against the proposition team’scase consecutively and without structure. This kind of presentationmay be pleasing from an oratorical perspective, but its lack of structurecan be ultimately crippling to the opposition team and annoying to thejudge. (“This plan is a bad idea, and it’s not inherent, and it has littlesignificance, and here’s an example of why it wouldn’t solve the prob-lem, and the plan makes no sense, and…”)

110


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 110

111


The hyper-structure. Sometimes the lead oppositionspeaker will advance her arguments using too much structure, ratherthan not enough. This presentation strategy is, in effect, the opposite ofthe undifferentiated mass strategy. It meets the organizational needs ofthe judge and the other team and then goes too far, cluttering thedebate with needless detail, much to the annoyance of all the partici-pants. (“Off of their first observation, in their A subpoint, on theirsmall two point, sub ‘b…’)

Each of these strategies has specific disadvantages and advantages.Neither strategy is optimal. Instead, the first opposition speaker shouldseek to differentiate and explain her arguments using a simple struc-ture to facilitate flowing, refutation, and consolidation in the later partsof the debate.

The problem for the first opposition speaker is how to respond to spe-cific components of the proposition team’s case without devoting too muchconfusing time and energy referencing the specific (and often highlydetailed) structure of that case. Let’s consider an example to see how thismight work in practice. Perhaps the proposition team has presented a casethat contends that the USA should get rid of its nuclear weapons arsenal.The basic outline of the case might look something like the example thatfollows. We do not here go into the full articulation of the arguments thatmight be made by a first proposition speaker defending disarmament;rather, we want to show a potential outline for refutation.

Observation I: There is a pressing need for the nuclear disarma-ment by the USA.

A. Accidents are likely and dangerous1. False alarms. Empirically, nuclear powers’ early warn-ing systems receive false alarms that could cause an auto-matic launch of nuclear weapons. This has almost hap-pened many times in the past, and reliable sources assureus that it is only a matter of time before an accidentalnuclear war breaks out for real. (Examples follow.)2. This situation is particularly true in Russia, where deterio-rating command and control systems, as well as an under-funded military and reliance on hair-trigger alert status mean

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 111

that accidental launches could happen at any time.3. Even one accidental detonation would kill tens of thousandsof people – every additional warhead detonation would ofcourse add to this death toll. There is a serious risk that an acci-dental nuclear war might break out, killing millions.

B. Proliferation1. By refusing to commit to nuclear disarmament, the USAis essentially in the process of spitting in the eye of theinternational nonproliferation regime, as codified in theNon Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In that treaty, the USAand other nuclear powers agreed to a goal of disarmament;they just have not yet put that goal into practice.2. This policy poisons the well of non proliferation. TheUSA’s hypocrisy on this issue communicates the messagethat what the NPT is really about is dividing the world intotwo classes: the nuclear “haves” and “have nots.” This stateof affairs is perceived as colonialistic, unfair, and unaccept-able by the majority of the world. Thus the NPT, the linch-pin of the global nonproliferation regime, has largely beenrendered obsolete by the obstinance of the USA.3. Proliferation is risky business. As more states acquire nuclearweapons, their use becomes more likely. Because nuclear deter-rence is largely a fictive construct with no empirical evidence, itis really only a matter of time before all kinds of conflicts beginto escalate to the nuclear level, killing millions.

The Plan: The USA should formally commit to nuclear disarma-ment, pursued in an expedient manner, while assuring that all rel-evant safety and security steps are made in the interim. This poli-cy will be pursued in consultation with all relevant actors.

III. SolvencyA. Antiproliferation credibility. The plan will bolster the non-proliferation regime, assuring that international nuclear prolif-eration can be effectively checked.B. Norms. The plan will establish an international norm that

112


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 112

113


clearly communicates that nuclear weapons are not an accept-able currency or lever in politics and thus will not be tolerated.C. Other nations will follow. The international community hasrepeatedly communicated that if the USA were to pursuemeaningful nuclear disarmament, others would follow its lead.D. Moral imperative. It is in all nations’ best interests to worktowards nuclear disarmament. The weapons themselves are soimmensely destructive, both physically and psychologically,that we must commit to rid the world of them. The plan is agiant step in this direction.

The first opposition speaker and her partner should generate argumentsagainst this case as it is being presented. As arguments against the case aregenerated, they should be flowed in the column next to the part of the firstproposition speaker’s case to which they correspond. As a general rule, thefirst opposition speaker should use only the most general structure of theproposition team’s case to signpost her arguments. All debaters must sign-post their arguments in the refutation and extension process. By this wemean that you should provide a signpost for the judge that clearly stateswhich argument or group of arguments you are refuting or extending.Signposting fulfills the “they say” step of the four-step refutation processdiscussed in Chapter 3. Many first opposition speakers will carry this sign-posting process too far, resulting in the “hyper-structure” problem dis-cussed above. Let’s say that you wanted to make some arguments againstthe “accidental launch” claims of the proposition case above. You wouldphrase your arguments in this way:

“I’ll begin by answering their first observation, which is their statementof harms. They give two specific scenarios, which I will answer in order.On their accidental launch scenario – scenario A, I have a few answers:

“First, the false-alarm risk is low. This is empirically proven bydecades of nuclear possession by many countries. There has never beena single accidental nuclear launch, much less an all-out nuclearexchange, which is what their impact claims assume. This scenario isnothing but reckless fear-mongering on the part of the proposition team.

“Second, safety is high. We have hotlines, diplomacy, con-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 113

structive engagement, and other weapons mitigation proceduresbecause of the risk of accidental launch. The accidental launch pos-sibility is why we have all of the existing safety procedures.

Third, a turn: This scenario encourages the nonproliferationregime and additional safety procedures. The possibility of an acci-dental launch encourages other countries to think twice aboutweapons buildups. By disarming, the proposition case makes itseem that the threat is ending, paradoxically increasing the risk ofaccidental launch by decreasing overall vigilance.”

This is excellent technique for structuring and presenting the initial oppo-sition arguments against the proposition case. Notice that the oppositionspeaker numbers her arguments consecutively, rather than trying to sign-post them off of specific components of the presentation of Scenario 1.Also notice that the speaker tags, or assigns a concise label to, her argu-ments before relating the substance of the argument: “First, the false-alarmrisk is low;” “Second, safety is high.” This is a good debate habit becauseit enables the judge to get a concise summary of each argument onto herflow. The average judge will only get the first three words of each argu-ment onto her flow, so it is incumbent upon debaters to make sure thatthose first three words are the most important.

Notice also that the speaker answers the first scenario as a whole,without attempting to refute all of its constituent parts. This is goodtechnique. You can easily refute a specific scenario, or a whole con-tention, without directly referencing each of its constituent parts. Youshould try to group arguments, whenever possible, to simplify therecord of arguments as exemplified by their presence on the flow of thedebate. Grouping arguments is just what it sounds like – a tactic thatanswers a few similar arguments as a group, rather than individually.In the example above, the speaker has grouped together all the argu-ments in the first scenario to answer them more effectively. Yet she hasstill answered the scenario effectively.

This speaker, after making the above arguments, should continueon to answer the second scenario and the solvency contention. Sheshould group each of those sections rather than answering the sub-structure of the case specifically. This does not mean that the speaker

114


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 114

115


should not answer the specific components of a proposition case con-tention. You can easily answer specific proposition arguments usingthe grouping method. Consider the following potential answers to theproposition team’s solvency contention:

“First, norm establishment won’t solve the problem. This has beenproven again and again with international treaties – the ChemicalWeapons Convention has been ratified, but countries still pursuechemical weapons. Likewise, the United Nations Declaration ofHuman Rights establishes norms, and those aren’t followed, either.There’s no reason to believe the plan would induce others to disarm.

“Second, nuclear weapons deter conflict. This means that after theplan, more wars will occur as deterrence evaporates. Also, this meansthat existing nuclear weapons states won’t have an incentive to get ridof their nuclear weapons because they believe in deterrence.

“Third, the antiproliferation regime is doomed anyway. Theplan can’t revitalize the nonproliferation regime because it relies onoutdated supply-side controls that have never worked. Countrieslike India, Pakistan, and Israel haven’t acquired nuclear weaponsbecause the USA has failed to get rid of its nuclear weapons.”

These arguments answer parts of the proposition team’s solvency contentionspecifically, but without using confusing signposting to refer to overly spe-cific parts of the proposition team’s case. The speaker does not say:

“They say in their B subpoint of their solvency that the plan willencourage other countries to give up nuclear weapons and that thiswill create some kind of norm, but…”

The speaker here has not yet made an argument, despite having spokenfor about ten seconds. This preface to an argument commits several com-mon errors. First, obviously, it is too long. Second, it gives too much cred-it to the proposition team’s argument by repeating it at length. Third, thespeaker is trying to respond to each sub-point of solvency individuallyrather than responding to the observation as a whole. Finally, the speakerdamages her own credibility by failing to state her argument clearly and

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 115

concisely at the beginning. The speaker could improve her presentation abit by saying something like the following:

“They say that their plan will create a norm against nuclearweapons, but this won’t work because…”

This is still a sub-par framing of a response. The speaker is still begin-ning her argument by reiterating the proposition team’s argumentrather than by declaratively making one of her own:

“First, norm establishment won’t solve the problem. This has beenproven again and again with international treaties…”

You should practice this technique of phrasing your arguments offen-sively and concisely rather than defensively and in a verbose manner.

A few final notes about opposition arguments against the propositionteam’s case. First, while you should definitely make arguments about theplan (e.g., its inadequacy, its poor wording, its foolish and naïve assumptionsabout the world), you should make those arguments where they will impactthe substantive claims of the case. For example, if the plan has no possibili-ty or provisions for enforcement, it is unlikely to solve the designated prob-lem. Make this argument on the solvency contention. Do not confuse thematter by signposting your argument on the plan. Perhaps the plan does notaccount for alternate causalities discussed in the harms contentions. Makethis argument on the relevant harms contentions, rather than on the plan.This technique points to a more general rule about placing opposition argu-ments – make your arguments against the part of the case that they impact the most.

Second, you should always design your opposition strategies with aneye toward crystallization in the opposition’s final stand (or stands, depend-ing on the format for debate) on the floor. This means you should try toensure that your arguments are relatively consistent with each other andappropriately diversified. Do not put all of your oppositional eggs in onebasket in the first opposition speech. Make several different kinds of argu-ments, both on the case and off the case, to ensure that you will have abroad spectrum of arguments to decide among when your subsequentspeeches come around.

116


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 116

117

CHAPTER 6:

EVIDENCE AND

RESEARCH

Basic Research Issues

Research on the debate’s subject matter improves the quality ofdebating. More importantly for debate’s practitioners,informed argument may produce more debate success. It will

provide an edge in debates: The informed have a greater range ofissues on which to draw. Additional information also assists debaters inproviding more analytical depth on any given issue. Good debatesrequire extensive preparation. It is a terrible experience for audiencesand judges to listen to speakers try to debate a subject about whichthey are not knowledgeable. You should not even think of debating ifyou are not committed to reading and researching current issues.

Research supports argument anticipation, which is the singlemost important skill for consistently outstanding debate perform-ances. If a debater is able to make strategic moves in anticipation ofthe ideas and tactics of an opponent, she is more likely to triumphon those issues and in the debate. Subject knowledge puts debaters

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 117

in a position to anticipate and evaluate the merits of issues. Research for effective parliamentary debating includes issue

preparation – a knowledge base of current events and notes from pre-vious debates. A number of issues constitute core value or policy claimsthat are regularly repeated in parliamentary debates. Value claims –such as life, liberty, equality, justice, privacy, and aesthetics – form thefoundation of many debate motions. Research on these matters wouldgreatly assist preparation for debates.

But what does it mean to research “liberty”? This issue has beeninvestigated for thousands of years. There are millions of pages of textson the subject. Liberty interests are relevant to discussions of virtuallyevery public policy issue. Liberty is hardly a static notion: There are newunderstandings of liberty and its application to personal or politicalbehaviors, reflecting the dynamism of the value. There are hundreds ofthousands of Web pages exploring its elements. How is it possible fordebaters to carefully investigate this issue? (It would take much longer toresearch the issue of liberty to prepare for a debate than the availableyears of one’s lifetime. It’s the Tristram Shandy paradox, to be sure.)

It is important to consider the use of research in preparation for a par-liamentary debate. Research on a single subject will support argument ona single issue or small argument set. It will rarely serve as the foundationfor even a full speech because parliamentary debate speeches do not fre-quently and exclusively discuss a single line of argument. It is in yourinterest to present multiple, independent arguments, any one of whichwill offer a winning position. Breadth of argumentation increases the like-lihood that at least one winning position will obtain at the conclusion ofthe debate. The reality is that you are unlikely to devote more than twoor three minutes to a major line of argument. Debaters, therefore, do notneed to master an academic discipline to have a sufficient knowledgeedge. You need only that information that will produce an advantage rel-ative to the information possessed by your opponent.

In addition, there are a limited number of applications for yourknowledge in a debate. On an issue like liberty, you will need to havesufficient information to discuss differing ideas about liberty. Youshould be able to compare the value of liberty interests to other valueclaims (e.g., why liberty interests ought to trump equality or privacy

118


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 118

119

EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH

rights). You will want to describe examples of liberty interests and theimpacts associated with liberty gains and losses. Your informationshould be sufficient to anticipate and counter the rejoinders of thosefrom the opposing side.

Debaters should read at least one newspaper every day. There is nosubstitute for the diversity of information available in a daily newspaper.Because of the nature of parliamentary debate, debaters must have attheir disposal a variety of information on a wide array of topics. If youread the newspaper every day, you will at least be up to date on currentevents and topics of general importance. When you read the newspaper,read it with an eye towards debate. Try to identify articles that might con-tain the information necessary to make good cases for future debates.Take notes. We suggest that you keep a notebook where you store notesfrom articles and publications that you read so that you will be able toaccess this information when you are writing cases or putting togetherinformation to oppose the cases argued by other teams.

Different debate motions frequently raise similar public policyissues. Immigration reform, peacekeeping forces, tax reform, gun con-trol, educational reform, affirmative action, terrorism, drug legaliza-tion, and other popular topics are often debated on more than onemotion or as a subset of a motion each year. A database file of topicsand issues, that is, an institutional history of debate practice, will directresearch and preparation for competitors. Some of this information isalready collected in parliamentary argument texts, sourcebooks andWebsites. Debaters can examine texts on current events, includingnewspapers, Websites and electronic journals, academic and otherperiodicals, and government documents. You might review multipleperiodicals in libraries rather than rely on personal subscriptions(unless you invested in Microsoft early and often). It is possible to sub-scribe online to wire service digests and newspapers worldwide. As themajority of debate topics are drawn from current events, these sourcesof information are valued sites. They are particularly important sourcesof information immediately prior to invitational and inter-varsity tour-nament competition.

Debate squads can coordinate research. Burden sharing among anumber of debaters, each researching a value claim, can increase the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 119

production of information without a concomitant increase in work forany single debater. You should compile notes for each researched topic,building up the base of research over time. We suggest that each squad,or group of colleagues on a debate team, divide up responsibilities forexamining different periodicals and publications throughout the yearfor maximum efficiency in obtaining information. Come up with a listof uniquely useful weekly, monthly, or quarterly publications andassign everyone on the squad to one or more of these resources. Thatperson should be responsible for reading their assignments and report-ing to the rest of the group on the interesting content they found. Thisway, a team can maximize the information accessible to all debaters.

Ethics and Evidence

Parliamentary debate is unique among debating formats in that itaccepts the voice of the debater as an authority on the subject beingdebated. Other formats, in which debaters read quoted evidence fromoutside sources, often diminish or devalue the expertise of the debatersthemselves on the subjects for debate. This feature of parliamentarydebate places a tremendous responsibility on the debater, who therebyshoulders the ethical responsibility to represent her sources and infor-mation fairly and honestly. At times, some unsavory elements in theparliamentary debate community have disregarded or ignored thisresponsibility and invented facts, figures, and case studies to bolstertheir arguments in debates. These tactics are to be deplored. It is notacceptable to make up information in debates. This is not ethical behav-ior. It is also not polite – your opponents deserve your respect and theopportunity to engage in a fair debate.

Falsification of evidence so breaches the mutually agreed uponstandards for the event that individuals who violate these standardsought to be excluded from competitive debate leagues and clubs in thesame way that individuals who plagiarize are excluded from academiccircles. Consider that you ought to treat others as you yourself wouldwant to be treated. When you enter a debate, you expect that youropponents will behave in an ethical and respectful manner. They willexpect the same of you. We urge you to act accordingly.

120


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 120

121


On occasion, you may encounter a debater who, you believe, hasher facts wrong. What should you do in this situation? We advise younot to assume that the opposition is deliberately distorting the truth inorder to trick you. They may have made a simple factual error. Theymay also be simply uninformed in comparison to your superior knowl-edge on the issue. We encourage you to give your opponents the ben-efit of the doubt, just as you would want in this situation. You may bewrong about the facts. Many people are convinced that they know “thefacts,” but are later proven to be gravely mistaken (e.g., the critics ofGalileo, flat earth theorists, phrenologists, particle physicists – all peo-ple allegedly operating under the high evidentiary standards of physi-cal science).

Preparing Cases

In addition to general preparation, it is wise to prepare proposition andopposition argument positions through the development of case ideasand opposition argumentation. Case development includes the follow-ing steps:

• Identifying a public policy issue framed in problem-solution lan-guage. For example, there is an emerging AIDS crisis in SoutheastAsia. The crisis is magnified by needle sharing among intravenousdrug users and the failure of sex partners to use condoms. A needleexchange program, with distribution of clean hypodermic needlesand bleach, as well as an educational program for condom use, woulddramatically reduce the incidence of AIDS.

• Doing advanced research on the issue. The debater will conduct suf-ficient research to have a knowledge advantage relative to theinformed opinion of opponents.

• Anticipating arguments. The debater will imagine the possible coun-ters by the opposing side in the debate and prepare effective replies.

• Practicing. A debate team will engage in one or more debates withthe information on the AIDS crisis. The proposition team willattempt to apply the case idea in full or as an example on more thanone motion.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 121

This model of case construction, which follows a logical pattern, pro-vides many direct and ancillary benefits for participants and is a rou-tine matter for experienced debaters. One thing that debaters developover years of debate participation is a reservoir of knowledge aboutmotions and issues. Experienced practitioners are likely to rely on thatinformation during formal preparation time immediately prior todebates as well as during the actual contest. For this reason, it is inac-curate to say that parliamentary debaters are exclusively engaged inextemporaneous argument. In fact, many argument positions are“scripted” ideas: The issues have been discussed in previous debates.Experienced debaters often replay the speeches of a debating career,exploiting lesser-trained or experienced participants who are yet tocreate their institutional memory of debate practice.

The model successfully replicates the stages of argument analysison a case, from initial brainstorming to generate an interpretation ofthe motion, to establishing a foundation of analytical reasoning andexamples, to execution in speeches. This sample practice set slowlytraces the techniques on display in tournament competition eachround. This patient method of instruction, carefully detailing the basicsof case construction for novice and advanced debaters, is a valuableinstructional tool. It reveals that research, from the personal informa-tion of participants, public policy literature, current events informa-tion, and notes from previous tournaments, may assist debaters’ edu-cational and competitive success.

We strongly recommend that debaters and their extended squadsbuild a library of pre-prepared cases for use in tournament debates.This exercise fulfills two major purposes: It prepares debaters, throughpractice, to construct a variety of cases; in addition, it ensures thatdebaters will not be caught wholly unawares and unprepared at tour-naments when they are called on to debate on the side of the proposi-tion. Using the guidelines for case construction, debaters should gen-erate a series of prepared cases on a variety of topics they are likely toencounter in their competitive debate season. Your pre-prepared caseshould contain the following components:

• A detailed outline for the first proposition speaker’s speech, including

122


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 122

123


an introduction, statement of harms, a plan, a statement of solvencyand advantages, and a conclusion.

• A list of potential opposition arguments and appropriate propositionrejoinders to these arguments.

• A list of humorous, issue-specific items that can be used to enliven thedebate and persuasively convey critical arguments.

Keep these pre-prepared cases in a notebook for reference before yourdebates. They will help you use your preparation time more produc-tively and efficiently. For more on how to use preparation time, refer-ence the section in the next chapter.

Make sure that your pre-prepared cases span a broad range ofpotential topic areas to maximize their potential applications. Duringthe course of a debate season, you may have to debate issues of envi-ronmental policy, constitutional reform, trade policy, labor relations,military intervention, public health issues, and drug policy. You shoulddevelop at least one pre-prepared case for each of these topic areas.You should also develop pre-prepared cases that deal with issues ofyour particular interest.

Opposition research includes disadvantage, counterplan, andcritique preparation. (Comprehensive information on the theory andpractice of these opposition arguments is contained in subsequentchapters of this text.) Opposition teams should prepare argumentson issues that recur in debates, including research on popular cases,such as gun control, immigration reform, the application of UnitedNations peacekeeping forces, and tradeoffs between the economyand the environment.

The opposition should anticipate and research conventional argu-ments that are frequently (and sometimes subconsciously or uncon-sciously) used by proposition teams. For example, a substantial num-ber of proposition teams in the USA routinely include arguments indi-cating that they ought to defend a framework for the debate by whichthe decision is given to the team best upholding utilitarian principles.Utilitarianism is often described by the first proposition speaker as amodel for debates in which the judge should ultimately rule for oragainst debate teams based on principles of “net benefits,” “cost-bene-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 123

fit analysis,” or “greater advantages.” In these cases, there is almostnever a defense of the core elements of utilitarianism, nor does it seemto be the case that the proposition team has carefully considered theimplications of strict utilitarianism (although the Nazis figured it outearly on). This is precisely the kind of argument that the oppositionmight identify, research, and prepare to answer prior to tournamentcompetition. Other matters include core value claims (life, liberty,equality, justice, privacy, order, aesthetics, etc.) and opponents’ cases.

Finding Evidence

We have already said that you should read a wide variety of magazines,books, and newspapers in order to be a well-researched debater. Ofcourse, reading is only one part of the equation – you must also workto comprehend and appropriately process the information contained inthe books and periodicals you read. Reading for debate is similar toother reading you may do for classes you are taking or have taken inthe past. Since you should expect to read many sources and articles forpreparation in parliamentary debate, you will have to develop goodskimming and reading comprehension techniques to maximize yourefficiency.

Journalists and other authors often (but alas, not always) crafttheir writing to make it interesting to their audience. Their care doesnot always result in articles that are immediately useful to researchingdebaters, who must poke through many articles on the same subject inorder to construct a good case or a solid opposition argument. The bestadvice we can give you for critical debate reading and research is this:Don’t collect facts more or less at random, hoping that they will proveuseful at some future point. Every time you collect data, collect it for aspecific purpose.

Since successful debaters must read a wide variety of publications,they must develop techniques for skimming the sources they evaluate,gleaning the relevant facts and circumstances as they read. Learn touse keyword identification as you read: Try to identify causal relation-ships established by authors, conclusions about policy recommenda-tions, and statements of quantitative and qualitative significance.

124


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 124

125


When reading longer articles or books, read the introduction and con-clusion of the piece to determine if it will be useful to you. Books, inparticular, should be skimmed: Read the table of contents or otherchapter list, and use the index to identify facts and sections of particu-lar utility to your research project.

Using Evidence

In parliamentary debate, debaters are not permitted to read directlyfrom researched materials to prove their various points. This rule doesnot mean, however, that parliamentary debaters should not makeinformed and well-evidenced arguments. Complete arguments includeevidence that substantiates the claims and warrants of the speaker. Inthe previous chapter on argument theory, you learned that there aremany kinds of evidence that debaters can use to prove their points. Inmany parliamentary debates, as in most public policy discussions, theprimary form of evidence is the example. Good parliamentary debatershave at their disposal a variety of anecdotes and examples. In the pre-vious chapters on case construction and negation, you have seen howexamples should be deployed to set up or knock down a case for theproposition. Examples must be accumulated through a process ofresearch and careful note-taking and memorization. The goal ofresearch in parliamentary debate is to build a substantial knowledgebasis from which you can draw to support extemporaneous speecheson a wide variety of topics.

You might, during the course of preparing arguments for varioussubjects, accumulate quotations of support from various experts in thefield. We caution you against trying to reproduce these quotations inparliamentary debates because there’s no ability to verify the quota-tion. Additionally, because there is no accompanying text, this practiceis really nothing more than name-dropping. The substance of the ideaought to “speak for itself,” so quotation from others is largely unneces-sary. This practice also undermines the credibility of the speaker, as thespeaker is no longer an authority on the issue but functions as a mouth-piece. Finally, quotation of others can serve an intellectually limitingfunction, as your agenda is then set by someone who is not inside the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 125

debate. Instead, you need to be more flexible to the needs of argumentsas they develop in the debate to promote clash.

Consider bringing a selection of texts to a debate tournament to aidin your preparation. Statistical reference texts and other almanacs area great resource, as they will give you relevant and useful informationon a wide variety of topics. You must bring a dictionary to every debatetournament: It will prove invaluable in the enterprise of defining wordsand interpreting motions during preparation time.

One kind of evidence is specialized or technical information. Thisinformation is not technical in a way that excludes people from thedebate; rather, it is technical in a way that assists understanding of aspecialized issue. For example, when discussing the ComprehensiveTest Ban Treaty, you ought to possess information about recent inter-national discussions of the issue, the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT),and the Low Level Test Ban Treaty. An uninformed discussion aboutthe merits of a nuclear test ban treaty will not suffice. Debaters musthave a sense of history and contemporary debates to be able to fullyand appropriately engage an issue. Details are important.

Finally, we encourage debaters to continue to identify news storiesduring the course of the tournament. All too often, debate tournamentsseem to occur in a news blackout. However, it can be very persuasiveto refer an audience or opposing team to a story in that morning’snewspaper as support for your argument.

All evidence falls under the categories of data and warrant, as dis-cussed in Chapter 3 on argument theory. A review of that chapter willsuggest several typically underutilized kinds of evidence, includinganalogical reasoning and empirical reasoning. Your research will helpyou make better, more successful arguments. If you use researchappropriately in conjunction with other debate skills, such as argumentanticipation and refutation, you will experience more success in yourdebate performances.

126


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 126

127

CHAPTER 7:

OPPOSITION

STRATEGY

– DISADVANTAGES

Introduction to Disadvantages

As we learned in Chapter 4, proposition teams design theircases largely on a problem-solution model. They identify aproblem, thereby showing that there is a need for the plan.

They then present a solution, or plan, to deal with those needs. Finally,they demonstrate that their proposal will be an adequate solution to theproblems that require redress. Usually, proposition teams employ acost-benefit approach to show that their plan is a good idea. Theyargue that their plan has more benefits than costs, or that its benefitsoutweigh the potential or actual accrued costs.

In debate, we talk a lot about weighing issues. What does this phrasemean? In Chapter 3, we talked extensively about comparing and analyz-ing arguments. We use the metaphor of weighing to visually demonstrate

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 127

how arguments are compared. Debaters and judges are constantly in aposition of trying to decide which arguments are more important thanother arguments, either in terms of significance, probability, soundness ofdata or reasoning, or some combination of all these factors. We weigh thesearguments against each other in a comparative analysis to determinewhich are the most important. One argument is said to outweigh anotherif it is more significant according to the established, agreed-upon criteria(which in turn are, of course, always up for debate).

The proposition team, then, tries to ensure that the benefits of theirplan outweigh its potential costs. One important strategy the opposi-tion team can take to counter this approach is to show that, in fact, thecosts of their approach outweigh the benefits. We have already learnedsome basic techniques for refuting the proposition case. We’ve seenhow to frame and debate attacks on significance and solvency. A sol-vency turn is one example of an opposition argument that tries to showthat the proposition team’s plan accrues more costs than benefits.Another such argument is the disadvantage.

A disadvantage argues that adoption of the plan will cause some-thing bad to happen. In formal debates, opposition teams argue disad-vantages when they want to show that adoption of the government’splan will lead to far greater undesirable consequences than desirableconsequences. Disadvantages are causal arguments, often composed ofseveral cause-effect relationships, leading to an ultimate impact.Disadvantages are also, typically, known as off-case arguments. Far frombeing irrelevant to the case, an off-case argument does not directlyrefute the foundational arguments of the case proper, i.e., the firstproposition constructive arguments. “Off-case” generally refers to theopposition’s forms of indirect refutation by the opposition, e.g., topi-cality arguments, counterplans, disadvantages, and critiques.

We have already learned what an impact is. Case advantages haveimpacts. Perhaps the proposition team claims that their plan will save lives,improve the economy, preserve constitutional or human rights, or attainany number of other benefits. Disadvantages also have impacts. Oppositionteams may argue that adoption of the plan may end lives, hurt the econo-my, decimate constitutional or human rights, or cause any number of otherharms. Disadvantages are an oppositional version of advantages.

128


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 128

129

OPPOSITION STRATEGY – DISADVANTAGES

Opposition teams may, in theory, argue any number of differentdisadvantages in a given debate. The purpose of these arguments is rel-atively unified: to prove, at the end of the debate, that it would beundesirable to adopt the proposition team’s case.

Basic Anatomy of the Disadvantage

Disadvantages are causal arguments that have the same basic struc-ture. Opposition teams arguing a disadvantage try to prove that theplan causes something bad to happen. It is important to note that dis-advantages, like most debate arguments, can be generic or specific. Ofcourse, we will need to have many kinds of disadvantages prepared inadvance. But you will always have to make these general disadvan-tages apply specifically to the proposition team’s case. In this section, wewill see how disadvantages work. First, we’ll look at some examples tosee what disadvantages look like and how they may be argued. Then,we’ll offer some vocabulary to use in discussions about disadvantages.

Example #1: Alliance Credibility

Proposition Plan: “The USA should withdraw from the USA-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty.”

Opposition Disadvantage: “Withdrawing from the US-JapanMutual Defense Treaty would be a disadvantageous and dangerouspolicy. If the USA says it will no longer commit to defend its longtimeally Japan, that otherwise peaceful nation will have no choice but toarm itself to prepare for its defense. This will no doubt massively desta-bilize the fragile peaces all over Asia and heighten the risk of war.Furthermore, such a withdrawal will threaten the credibility of allother USA treaty obligations, as that country will no longer seem to bea trustworthy ally. Other alliances will begin to crumble, and manynations will feel insecure as the shelter of the USA’s nuclear umbrellais removed. This will mean that weapons will be put on a hair-triggeralert, increasing the risk of accidental conflict.”

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 129

Commentary: Here the opposition presents the disadvantage as acausal chain, explaining each step as she reasons her way through theargument. The gist of the alliance credibility disadvantage is that oncea nation begins to break treaties, it loses its credibility as an interna-tional ally in other areas. The credibility gap is said to spill over intoother areas, causing bad things to happen. In this case, the oppositionteam is trying to show that if the USA develops a reputation as analliance-breaker, then wars will ensue. Do you think the speaker per-suasively makes the case for the disadvantage? How could the speak-er make her case in a more persuasive manner?

Example #2: Business Confidence

Proposition Plan: The government should increase taxes oncorporate profits to facilitate the redistribution of wealth.

Opposition Disadvantage: “The proposition plan will cause anear-total collapse in business confidence, destroying the economy as aresult. The economy is teetering on the edge of collapse right now fora variety of reasons. Although ultimately it will probably pull through,the proposition plan will doubtless reverse this state of affairs and sendthe economy into a tailspin. Corporate profits are low enough as it is,and we depend on the strength of corporations to pull us out of the cur-rent recession. If the proposition plan passes, corporations will notonly lose money in the short term, but they will lose confidence in thegovernment for the long term. This loss of confidence will cause somebusinesses to go bankrupt and others to flee the country in search ofgreener pastures. The net result will be the collapse of the economy.Millions will be out of work and hungry. Inflation will soar as moneyis ‘redistributed’ into the economy. Too bad there won’t be anything forthe poor to buy after the proposition plan succeeds in closing down allour industries and shops. So, when they collapse the economy, theywon’t even be able to solve their own advantage.”

Commentary: In this example, the opposition is using a three-tieredstrategy to relate their disadvantage to the plan action. Notice how the

130


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 130

131


opposition speaker makes three distinct arguments about why the planwill be bad for business:

• Businesses will go bankrupt because they will lose money.• Other businesses will leave the country because they are losing

money here.• Redistribution of wealth will cause inflation, devaluing currency.

This is a sophisticated strategy for arguing a disadvantage. You shouldtry to relate your disadvantage to the plan in as many ways as possibleto make it more convincing to the judge. Also, note how the speakerargues that if the economy collapses, the plan will be unable to fulfillits goals. In essence, the speaker proves that if she wins the disadvan-tage, the case will be turned because it will cause the opposite of what ittries to accomplish. Does the speaker make a persuasive case for thedisadvantage? How does her disadvantage compare to the disadvan-tage in Example 1? Is it more or less persuasive? Why?

Example #3: Protectionism

Proposition Plan: The European Union should ban theimport of food products made with genetically modified organisms(GMOs).

Opposition Disadvantage: “The proposition plan is a protectionistpolicy that will cause a massive trade war and most likely be struck downby the World Trade Organization (WTO). The whole reason we have aninternational trade regulation regime is to prevent plans like this one. If theEuropean Union begins to institute these unilateral, non-negotiable tradebarriers, other nations will respond in kind. This action will result in atrade war as tariffs and taxes spiral out of control. Whole sectors of theeconomy could be devastated as other nations target European businessesfor retaliation. In these tense times, a trade war could easily turn into ashooting war. Meanwhile, the WTO will surely strike down the proposi-tion team’s mandates, leaving them with zero solvency and a whole lot ofconflict. Better to stay with the present system, imperfect though it is.”

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 131

Commentary: The opposition speaker takes great pains to walk thejudge through all the steps involved in her disadvantage. There are at leastfour different internal causal relations involved in this disadvantage:

• Other nations will respond in kind with their own trade barriers.• These actions will result in a trade war.• Whole sectors of the economy will be devastated.• A trade war could become a shooting war.

The more you describe the causal chain of the disadvantage, the morelikely the judge is to find it credible. The speaker also argues that theresult of the disadvantage will be that the plan is struck down by theWTO. This is a useful argument for the opposition. Notice how thisworks: Even if they are not able to win that the proposition plan causesa trade war, the opposition team can still win the debate on this argu-ment because they can prove that the plan will never be implemented;that it will be rendered void by the WTO. Finally, the speaker sets upher rebuttal strategy in the last sentence: “Better to stay with the pres-ent system, imperfect though it is.” This is good technique. It is usefulto tell the judge early and often why the disadvantage is a reason tovote for the opposition. Does the speaker satisfactorily explain thecausal relations in her disadvantage? How could she improve the pres-entation of these relationships?

Example #4: Court Credibility

Proposition Plan: The U.S. Supreme Court should overturnRoe v. Wade. The Congress should pass legislation mandating a rightto abortion based on equal opportunity.

Opposition Disadvantage: “The proposition plan is terriblydisadvantageous. It will destroy the already fragile credibility of theSupreme Court, eliminating the Court’s ability to serve as a necessarycheck on the unconstitutional excesses of the legislative and executivebranches. When the Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will be in essenceadmitting that it was wrong for decades about a popular decision.

132


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 132

133


People will have no reason to trust them about future decisionsbecause the Court will be seen as fickle. When Congress passes legis-lation, this overturn will add insult to injury. Essentially Congress willbe saying that the Court is totally useless. Unfortunately for the propo-sition team, this deathblow to the Court’s credibility will have lastingand devastating consequences. The Supreme Court is vital to main-taining our system of checks and balances. If they aren’t credible, noone will enforce their decisions. The net effect of the proposition planwill be unchecked tyranny of the legislative and executive branches.Might as well use the Constitution to light a cigarette – it won’t be goodfor much else.”

Commentary: One of the strong suits of this disadvantage, as pre-sented, is its strong wording. The speaker uses words like “fickle,”“deathblow,” and “devastating.” In debate, we call this power wording –the idea being that one should use striking words with a lot of forcewhenever possible, as such phrasing helps cement your ideas in themind of your judge. Notice also that the speaker advances the claimthat the “net effect” of the plan will be “unchecked tyranny.” This is asetup for the rebuttal calculus, when she will have to prove that herdisadvantage outweighs the case impact. The court credibility disad-vantage is particularly useful for agent counterplans, which are discussedin the next chapter. How is this disadvantage different from the previ-ous examples? How does the speaker’s use of humor at the end of herpresentation affect the overall persuasiveness of the disadvantage?

Example #5: Symbolic Action

Proposition Plan: The United Nations should pass a resolutionstating its support for fair trade instead of free trade.

Opposition Disadvantage: “The proposition team’s plan is apurely symbolic action that will only forestall and co-opt real, lasting,meaningful social change. It is disadvantageous. Right now, a varietyof social movements are mobilizing to promote fair trade and protest

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 133

against the corporatist practices of agencies like the World TradeOrganization. The plan’s action serves as a Band-Aid solution, i.e., itis a superficial solution to a deep and abiding wound. Activist move-ments are on the verge of reaching critical mass to effect lastingchange in the area of fair trade policies. Meanwhile, the propositionteam’s plan acts to take the wind out of their sails, quiescing newsocial movements just as they’re about to achieve some of their goals.The question is this: Is it better to have social change from above orfrom below? The proposition team’s plan dictates change from above,and so must fail because it doesn’t wait for the all-important con-sciousness-raising period. Plus, it serves as a purely symbolic action,neutering potentially revolutionary social movements that, left tothemselves, would solve the case harms and so much more. The planis therefore, on balance, not beneficial.”

Commentary: The symbolic action disadvantage serves a widerange of interests against a wide range of cases. The gist of this argu-ment is that the proposition team’s case is basically a purely symbolic,fundamentally toothless action. This is bad because such incremental,cosmetic reform directly de-mobilizes social reform movements thatwould otherwise work to solve the problem in question. When youargue a disadvantage like this, you should emphasize that if they wereleft to their own devices, the social movements in question would solvethe problem. Notice how this speaker creates a sense of urgency aboutthe status of the movements. She says that the fair trade movements are“on the verge of reaching critical mass,” thereby communicating to thejudge that now is the key time for these movements. The implication isthat if the plan were implemented at this unique junction in history, itwould have particularly bad consequences. Do you find the presenta-tion of this disadvantage to be persuasive? Why or why not? How doesit differ substantively and structurally from the presentations of theprevious disadvantages?

__________________________

134


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 134

135


Now that we’ve seen a few examples of disadvantages in action, let’slearn some general vocabulary to use when talking about them. Notethat these vocabulary words are mostly not for use in debate rounds.Judges and audiences, in general, will not have a working knowledgeof formal debate vocabulary of any kind. Use of excessive debate jar-gon in your speeches will sound silly and almost certainly lose and con-fuse the judge. That said, it is also the case that debate, like all otherdisciplines or activities, has its own jargon and slang.

There are only a few key terms to keep in mind when thinkingabout disadvantages. The first is the concept of a link. In formaldebates, a link is the relationship of one’s argument to the opponent’sposition in the debate and the internal chain of reasoning in a complexargument. More specifically, links are how disadvantages apply to aproposition team’s case. In the examples above, the links to the propo-sition team’s case occur first in the disadvantage. In example #4 above(the court credibility disadvantage), the initial disadvantage link is thatan overturn of Roe v. Wade would hurt court credibility.

Disadvantages also have internal links. These are just more links in thechain of causal reasoning that is a disadvantage. The claim that trade bar-riers will escalate into a full trade war is one internal link that is usedabove. Sometimes disadvantages will have many internal links; at othertimes, they will only have a few. One challenge a proposition debaterfaces is identifying and responding to the internal links in disadvantages.Diagram or flowchart a few disadvantages, at least initially, until youdevelop a better understanding of how they work. To make disadvan-tages more persuasive to your judge and audience, keep the number ofinternal links to a minimum. Judges and audiences tend to get bored,annoyed, and skeptical of long and tenuous chains of reasoning.

Internal links lead, ultimately, to the impact of a disadvantage. InChapter 5, we introduced the concept of an impact. The impact to anargument is similar to the “therefore” step used in the four-step refuta-tion process: It is the ultimate result of your preceding reasoning.Impacts used above include “tyranny,” a “shooting war,” and, in thecase of the symbolic action argument, “sweeping fair trade reforms.”

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 135


1. Identify the link arguments used by each of the above disadvan-tages. How does each argument relate to the specific planoffered as an example?

2. Identify the impact arguments used by each of the above disad-vantages. Be specific. Which disadvantages, if triggered, mightimplicate the proposition team’s ability to solve their designatedharms? How?

3. Identify the internal links used by each of the above disadvantages.Using a simple flowchart or other diagram, explain what steps eachdisadvantage must go through in order to reach its impact.

Advanced Disadvantage Anatomy

Disadvantages must have a link and an impact. This is the nature of a dis-advantage argument. The opposition wants to show that the plan willcause some bad thing to happen. In order to do so, it needs to show thatthis bad thing is not happening now. This is true in everyday argument:

Parent: If you make that face for too long, it’ll freeze that way.Child: Too late. It’s already frozen that way.

Consider the example of the court credibility disadvantage detailedabove. The opposition team is arguing that the plan will hurt the cred-ibility of the Supreme Court, which would be bad. What if the propo-sition team responded by saying that the credibility of the SupremeCourt was already terrible, especially given the controversial Bush v.Gore decision made in 2000? Why would this be a good argument forthe proposition team to make?

Think about it: If the proposition team can win that court credibil-ity is already low, then they have a pretty good shot at disproving thedisadvantage. They can show that their plan cannot make the problem

136


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 136

137


any worse, and so the disadvantage is not a reason to vote for the oppo-sition team. This kind of argument is called a uniqueness argument informal debates.

Uniqueness is the part of a disadvantage that proves that the propo-sition plan and only the proposition plan could trigger the impacts.Affirmative advantages can also have a burden of uniqueness: If theirharm is being solved now, then there is no unique need for the plan.

So when we say that disadvantages must be unique, we are sayingthat the opposition team must prove that the causal chain of events willnot be provoked in the status quo (present system). By extension, theopposition team must show that the plan will uniquely provoke the dis-advantageous reaction outlined in the disadvantage argument itself.Opposition teams generally advance uniqueness arguments in theirfirst presentation of the disadvantage. What kinds of uniqueness argu-ments are made in the disadvantage examples 1-5 listed above?

• Business Confidence: The speaker makes a uniqueness argumentwhen she says this: “The economy is teetering on the edge of collapseright now for a variety of reasons. Although ultimately it will proba-bly pull through, the proposition plan will doubtless reverse this stateof affairs and send the economy into a tailspin.” This reasoning is auniqueness argument because the speaker is trying to demonstratethat the economy will be fine now, but that the implementation of theplan will upset that balance.

• Symbolic Action: The speaker is trying to establish that movementsare mobilizing now: “Right now, a variety of social movements aremobilizing to promote fair trade and protest against the corporatistpractices of agencies like the World Trade Organization.” This state-ment is a uniqueness argument for the disadvantage because it triesto show that everything is fine now.

The concept of uniqueness can be one of the most confusing forbeginning debaters. Remember that the opposition wants to provethat the present system is fine now, and that the proposition planwill upset this balance.

Other useful concepts in arguing disadvantages include the con-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 137

cepts of brink, time frame, and threshold. When we say a disadvantage ison the brink, we mean that it is an immediate possibility. It is on theedge of occurring. An opposition debater wants to claim that theproposition plan is enough to push the chain leading up to the impactover the brink. An example of a brink argument can be found in thesymbolic action disadvantage presented above: “Activist movementsare on the verge of reaching critical mass to be able to effect lastingchange in the area of fair trade policies.” Some key words here, used toindicate that a brink is near, are “verge” and “critical mass.”

The time frame is the amount of time it takes for a particular condi-tion to occur, usually (in the case of a disadvantage) its impact. It isusually said that disadvantages with a quick time frame – i.e., whoseimpacts will happen quickly rather than over the long term – are morepersuasive. This is not, however, always true. We will examine theissue of time frame more completely in the section on impact analysisand comparison.

Finally, disadvantages often have a threshold. A threshold is thedegree of change necessary to precipitate a particular outcome. Indebates about disadvantages, a threshold is usually the degree ofchange of an affirmative plan from current policy that will triggerundesirable consequences. All links, internal links, and impacts havethresholds, i.e., they have a trigger point which, when passed, will kickin the next level of the causal chain. To remember this term, think ofthe threshold of a doorway. You can approach a door all you want, butonce you have passed through the threshold, you have unmistakablywalked through the doorway. Some phenomena have higher or lowerthresholds than others. For example, it may take a lot of doing to youto take out the trash, but very little effort to get you to eat a deliciousgourmet meal. Trash removal, then, has a high threshold. Gourmetmeal consumption, however, has a low threshold.

All of these words may seem complicated, but in fact they are fair-ly commonsensical and can be easily remembered and applied onceyou figure out what makes a disadvantage work. In order to windebates on disadvantages, you’ll need to come up with a reliable stableof arguments to deploy on demand. The examples provided in thischapter are a good start, but you’ll need a wider variety in order to suc-

138


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 138

139


ceed. How can you come up with good ideas for disadvantages? Thebest place is to begin with the proposition team’s case. Why isn’t theplan being done now? Odds are that if the plan is, in fact, a good idea,then someone or something pretty important is keeping it from beingdone. Some examples might be:

• Vested interests. Sometimes powerful political forces conspire tokeep certain items off the policy agenda because they stand to loseinfluence or money. Fossil fuel industries, for example, lobby furi-ously against legislation to tax carbon emissions. These vested inter-ests are grounds for a disadvantage: Ask yourself what would happenif these industries were hurt financially or if they felt betrayed bygovernment action that ran contrary to their perceived interests.

• Financial shortages. Some policies aren’t being done now becausethere isn’t enough money to do them, or they are too expensive.Perhaps money is tight and implementing the new policy wouldresult in a tradeoff with another, more desirable, program.

The idea here is to figure out who or what stands to lose if the plan isadopted.

Suggested Exercise:

Below are a few examples of proposition cases. Generate a disad-vantage argument for each plan. Try to make your link argumentsand impact arguments as specific as possible.

• The government should ban all possession of handguns.• The United Nations should make all decisions with a vote of the

General Assembly, rather than using the Security Council.• The European Union should abandon use of the euro and return to

national currencies. • The USA should recognize Taiwan as an independent state.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 139

Answering Disadvantages

A proposition debater has to learn how to answer disadvantages in acomprehensive and persuasive manner. This task can sometimes be adifficult enterprise, as it is hard to predict what disadvantages theopposition team will argue. Many proposition debaters have great dif-ficulty answering disadvantages in a constructive way. Often, they willsimply make one response or ignore the disadvantage altogether, nodoubt using the strategy of “ignore it and it’ll go away” that works sowell for children. Below is constructive, step-by-step advice to propo-sition teams about how to debate disadvantages.

Step 1: Analyze the Disadvantage.

This is the most important part of the process. If you misread the dis-advantage, you could fail to answer it properly. You might even answerit entirely backwards, and lose the debate. (Don’t laugh! It happens toeveryone sooner or later.) To analyze the disadvantage, you mustanswer the following questions:

• What’s the link? What is it about your plan, specifically, that suppos-edly triggers the disadvantage?

• What are the internal links? The opposition team is alleging that yourplan causes something, which causes something else, which causessomething bad to happen. Figure out what those internal links are.They are often the weakest part of any disadvantage.

• What’s the impact? What is the bottom-line bad thing that the oppo-sition team says will happen?

• How does the impact compare to the impacts of your case advan-tages? Is it bigger or smaller? Will it happen sooner or later? Is it aone-time event or a systemic problem?

140


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 140

141


Step 2: Generate Answers to the Disadvantage.

Once you’ve identified the critical components of the disadvantage,you need to generate answers to it. The best place to do this is on yourflow (your notes for the debate) or even on a separate piece of paper.Even if you are not planning to number your arguments in yourspeech, consider numbering them on the page so you can easily checkfor duplication and relevance. We suggest generating more answersthan you will eventually make in your speech and then paring the listdown to the best two or three arguments. A few things to keep in mind:

Answering Links. You almost always need to answer the link whendebating a disadvantage. Generally speaking, disadvantages come in twokinds: those whose link to the plan is virtually certain, and those whoselink is tenuous. When you assess that the link is very strong, don’t wastevaluable speech time attacking it. Instead, focus your energies on otherparts of the disadvantage. When you think the link argument is tenuousand easily dislodged, concentrate your fire at that level of the disadvan-tage rather than scattering your answers around.

Link arguments come in two varieties: simple (defensive)“no link”arguments and offensive “link turn” arguments. When you argue thatthere is no link to the disadvantage, you are saying that its relationshipto the plan is nonexistent or negligible at best. Phrase your argumentin a simple, declarative fashion:

“On the business confidence disadvantage. There is no link to theplan, because we don’t take enough money from corporations tocause a loss in confidence.”

Remember that it is the opposition’s responsibility to establish the link to theplan. As a proposition speaker, you should emphasize this allocation ofburdens to the judge.

You can also make offensive “link turn” arguments. A turn, alsoknown as a “turnaround,” or, historically, as “turning the tables,” is an

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 141

argument that reverses the position of an opponent. Link turns arearguments that attempt to reverse a link established by the other team.For example, if the opposition team argued a disadvantage that said theplan hurt economic growth, the proposition team might argue a linkturn by saying that their plan actually helped economic growth.

Remember the distinction we drew in the argument chapterbetween offensive and defensive arguments? Link turns are offensive,since they seek to turn the disadvantage into an advantage for theproposition team. Think about it: What if, by proving that your planhelped the economy, you could argue that saving the economy wasactually an advantage for your plan rather than a disadvantage? Linkturns are powerful arguments.

Answering Uniqueness. Most disadvantages are vulnerable atthe level of uniqueness. That is, there are many things that couldpotentially trigger the impact without the aid or succor of the plan. Youneed to think of what those things are and say them, like so:

“They say our plan will collapse the economy, but we disagree. Ifrecord unemployment, low consumer confidence, and a burgeon-ing recession haven’t collapsed the economy, then our small, fiscal-ly responsible policy will certainly not accomplish this.”

Proposition team uniqueness arguments generally come in two kinds:historical and predictive. Historical uniqueness arguments show thatthere are present or historical conditions that should have triggered thedisadvantage. The economy example given just above is a historicaluniqueness argument. It has the added advantage of showing that theinternal link to the disadvantage is empirically denied.

When you make a predictive uniqueness answer, you are sayingthat some thing will happen in the future that will cause the disadvan-tage. In the case of the protectionism disadvantage above, you mightshow that the EU will adopt other regulations in the future that will beequally, if not more controversial. This argument proves that the dis-advantage is not a reason to reject the plan, since its consequences willhappen with or without the plan.

142


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 142

143


Debating Impacts. It is vital that you debate the impact to disad-vantages you hear in debates. Even if, in your judgment, the impact isinconsequential or negligible, you still need to say so in your speech:

“They say that the plan will increase bureaucracy, but we thinkthat’s a small price to pay for lifting millions out of poverty.”

Notice how it is not enough merely to say that the impact is small. Froma galactic perspective, the Earth is pretty small. You must always saythat the impact is small compared to something else, in your case, theimpacts to your case advantages.

Just as with links, there are two basic ways to argue againstimpacts. You can argue defensively, saying that the impact is not real-ly bad, or that other things will remediate it (for example, comingadjustments in fiscal policy might stop any adverse economic impact).You can also argue offensively, turning the impact just as you mightturn the link. An impact turn is an argument that tries to reverse anestablished impact. Using the economy example, a proposition teammight argue that economic growth is devastating to the environment,thereby turning the impact of the disadvantage.

Having Offensive Arguments. It is important to try and haveat least one offensive argument against every opposition disadvantage.BUT (and this is VERY important), you should never argue linkturns and impact turns against the same disadvantage. This unfortu-nate occurrence is called a double turn. In answering a disadvantage, adouble turn takes place when a team argues a link turn (“We solve thatproblem”) AND an impact turn (“That problem is actually a benefit”)on the same disadvantage. When this happens, the proposition team issaying that they stop a good thing from happening; in essence, runninga new disadvantage against their own case. Even if you do not chooseto continue arguing your turn in the rebuttals, it is usually a good ideato have turn arguments in your constructive speeches: Turns make itmore difficult for opposition teams to conclusively win disadvantages.

Brainstorming Answers. It is difficult to answer disadvan-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 143

tages on the fly, in debates with very little preparation time, but youcan do a lot of planning before the debate begins.

• Make a list of common disadvantages for any topic. Use the examplesin this book as a starting point for such a list.

• Make a list of disadvantages that apply specifically to your preparedcases. Ask yourself: What disadvantages would I run if I were theopposition?

Then, generate a few generic answers for each of the disadvantages onyour list. Take stock of your pre-prepared cases and figure out whatdisadvantages they potentially link to so that you can be ready for pre-pared opposition teams.

The most important thing to remember when debating disadvan-tages is to use your case to answer them. As we discussed in the chapteron case construction, your proposition case should be structured insuch a way as to preemptively address the major opposition arguments.You can do more than this initial effort, though. You should use yourcase to make link turn and uniqueness arguments. In a debate wherethe proposition team has advocated providing comprehensive nationalhealth insurance, the opposition has argued that this plan would hurtthe economy. What is the proposition’s response?

“They say that our plan will hurt the economy, but this couldn’t befurther from the truth. The existing lack of comprehensive nation-al health insurance is already hurting the economy and will contin-ue to do so. This is true for a couple of reasons: When people don’thave health insurance, they are likely to see a doctor only whenthey need acute care. Because these people don’t have insurance,taxpayers end up footing gigantic bills. Preventative medicine ismuch cheaper in the long run than the painful lack of a system wehave now. Also, with a single-payer system, the government will bepaying out less in Medicaid/Medicare benefits than it is now. In thelong run, we will massively help the economy.”

The proposition speaker is using her case to turn back the disadvan-

144


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 144

145


tage. Notice how she makes a coordinated attack on the disadvantage.She begins by making a uniqueness argument: “The existing lack ofcomprehensive national health insurance is already hurting the econo-my and will continue to do so.” This argument is designed to show thatthe harm to the economy is both ongoing and inevitable. Its ensuingexplanations are also link turns to the disadvantage. The speakermakes three distinct link arguments: acute care, preventative medicine,and Medicare/Medicaid payouts.

You should also use your case to address the impacts to the disad-vantage. We will discuss this more in the section on impact assessment.Remember to explicitly compare (hopefully, for your sake, in yourfavor) the relative weights and merits of the case impacts vs. the dis-advantage impacts.

Step 4: Make your answers

A final question is this: When you answer disadvantages (and we hopethat you will, indeed, answer them rather than merely looking con-fused at the prospect), how should you phrase your answers? Thereare at least two schools of thought on this issue, and how you debateshould always vary based on your audience, judge preferences, and thehabits and norms of the community in which you are competing. Youmay find you want to make a few arguments but don’t know how topresent them. Don’t panic. You have at least two options:

Combining. You can combine your arguments into a cohesivewhole, in essence offering a short speech in response to the disadvan-tage. The above response defending national health insurance is oneexample of this technique.

Separating. You can also offer your arguments individually, phras-ing them as discrete entities. For this technique to succeed, we suggestyou number your arguments or use some kind of transitional languageto ensure that everyone involved is able to follow you. This techniqueis discussed in greater detail below.

If you are debating in the USA, either technique is certainly

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 145

acceptable, although the majority of parliamentary debaters these daysseem to separate out their arguments for more direct clash and easiernote taking. If you are debating outside of the USA, you may find thatyour judges prefer that you combine your arguments into a more cohe-sive whole. There are certainly exceptions to this generalization. Manyinternational debaters and international judges prefer the rigorous,specific refutation enabled by separating out individual arguments.

This concept of separating out your arguments may seem a bit con-fusing at first, but really it’s quite simple. When you generate answersto a disadvantage, you’ll end up with a few discrete and potentiallyunrelated answers. Remember the “symbolic action” argument from afew pages back? You might come up with three different answers and,in lieu of “speechifying” them, decide to offer them up as a multi-pronged attack on the disadvantage. You would then end up sayingsomething like this:

“On the symbolic action disadvantage. We have three answers.1) It doesn’t apply to the plan. Our proposal is certainly not a

Band-Aid solution. A United Nations push to pressure for fairtrade would constitute major progress in the fight for environ-mental and labor protections.

2) Movements are doomed now . Fair trade movements are strug-gling now. Just look at the present protests. Sure, they’re big,but they don’t achieve any consensus for change. In the pres-ent system, movements will surely fail to enact lasting change.

3) The plan saves the fair trade movement. Our plan puts wind intothe sails of the movements by sending a critical signal of supportfrom the United Nations. The resolution of support is a win formovements, giving them a success at a critical time when theymust have something to rally around. They will also be able to usethe resolution to build larger, more diverse coalitions.”

The proposition speaker has taken three discrete arguments andoffered them separately, yet as a concerted attack. The first argumentis a “no link” attack. The second is a “uniqueness” argument. Thespeaker concludes with a “link turn.” Notice that she has not felt com-

146


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 146

147


pelled to use debate jargon to talk about her arguments. Avoiding jar-gon makes her arguments better and more effective.

These arguments are phrased and structured in a very precise man-ner. Each individual argument begins with a “tag line,” a summary of theargument that is to follow, also called the claim. The warrant and the datafollow in the subsequent part of each argument. Why are the argumentsstructured this way? There are several reasons. First, when you offer aquick summary of your argument, you help the judge and audience tofollow your reasoning because they know what to expect. Second, hav-ing quick and simple tags for individual arguments facilitates effectivenote taking (more on this in the skills chapter). Finally, if you phraseyour arguments in this way, you will find them easier to continuethrough to the rebuttals. You will be able to say to the judge:

“As to the symbolic action disadvantage. The team from State Statestill hasn’t addressed our argument that this disadvantage plainlydoes not apply to the plan, which is a large-scale action…”

This way, with only a few words, you and the judge are instantly on thesame page. Pity the team from State State (Go State!). Their debatersare obviously not taking good notes. If they were, they might haveclashed directly with your argument rather than ignored it.

Why would you separate your arguments out with numbers or otherexplicit transitional language? Aside from the reasons given above, manyinvolved in debate feel that this added bit of structure promotes directclash by facilitating comprehensive refutation of individual arguments.Many debaters, however, have a tendency to get carried away at the“microlevel” of the debate and miss the big picture. It is important to bal-ance attention to individual arguments with attention to the bigger con-cerns, such as: Why, exactly are you (choose one) a) winning the debate;b) losing the debate; c) wearing that hideous tie?

NOTE: The strategies described above are generally used for answer-ing all kinds of off-case arguments. With disadvantages, counterplans,critiques, and topicality arguments, you will always have the option ofcombining your arguments or separating them out.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 147

Suggested Exercise:

Using the five example disadvantages listed in the first section(alliance credibility, protectionism, symbolic action, court credibility,business confidence), generate four answers for each. Assume youare defending the sample case offered in each example. Write outyour answers for each disadvantage in both the separated and com-bined formats given above.

148


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 148

149

CHAPTER 8:

OPPOSITION

STRATEGY

– COUNTERPLANS

Introduction to Counterplanning

Traditionally, the proposition team is the advocate of change ina formal debate, while the opposition denies the necessity forchange by defending the status quo. This model is based on legal

argumentation, whereby the prosecution argues for change in thedefendant’s status (i.e., from free to incarcerated) while the defenseargues for no change (i.e., the defendant should remain free).

The ability to defend the status quo carries certain advantages for theopposition. The opposition is said to have presumption, so that it becomesincumbent on the proposition team to shoulder the burden of proof. Theproposition team has the responsibility to prove their case is better thanmaintaining the present system. Many opposition teams find the presentsystem easy to defend, as it is relatively stable and predictable.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 149

By no means is the opposition’s strategic arsenal limited to defense of thepresent system. The status quo is only one way to delegitimize the need for,or viability of, the proposition team’s case. Another, very powerful, option isthe counterplan. A counterplan is a proposal offered by the opposition thatprovides a reason to reject the proposition team’s plan or proposal.

In everyday discussion and argument, we argue counterplans all thetime without even realizing it. If you are discussing dinner plans withyour friends, you do not feel bound to defend the status quo if you dis-agree, do you? If you did, the discussion would look something like this:

Friend: Gee, I’m hungry. Let’s go get hamburgers.You: No, let’s just not eat.

Unless you and your friend are on a hunger strike, your statement islikely to be a foolish and unpopular suggestion. Instead, you mightcounter with a plan of your own:

Friend: Gee, I’m hungry. Let’s go get hamburgers.You: Let’s get Chinese food instead.

You have just proposed a counterplan. Not only that, by using theword “instead,” you have argued that your counterplan is a reason toreject the original plan. We make “instead” decisions between plansand counterplans on a daily basis. For example, every morning wehave to decide whether we are going to go to work or stay in bed.Clearly, if we stay in bed we cannot go to work. Those two options arecompetitive. That is, they compete for the same resources and time. Acounterplan is an “instead” argument for the opposition.

Counterplans are everywhere in practical decision making. Howdo counterplans work in debate? Consider again what the basic roleof the opposition team is in any formal debate. Broadly speaking,opposition teams win debates by showing that the proposition team’sproposal or position is a bad idea. So what a counterplan needs to doin a debate is show that the judge should not endorse the propositionteam’s plan; instead, the judge should endorse the opposition team’scounterplan. How is this accomplished?

150


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 150

151

OPPOSITION STRATEGY – COUNTERPLANS

First things first: A counterplan, just like a plan, should have a textthat lays out what exactly the opposition team is advocating as aresponse to the proposition team’s proposal. If the proposition teamproposes a particular course of policy action, the opposition counter-plan should do the same. If the proposition team proposes a particularstance on values or facts, the opposition’s counterproposal should dothe same. For maximum effectiveness, it is important that the counter-plan (or counterproposal, or counterposition) mirror the propositionteam’s proposal. It is important to have a text so that the propositionteam has a fair chance to debate what exactly it is that the oppositionis proposing. This requirement is reciprocal to the opposition’s (emi-nently fair) demand that the proposition team spell out what exactly itis that they are proposing.

Once the counterplan text is written, the opposition needs to fig-ure out why the counterplan is an “instead” option. In formal debate,we call this competition. We say that a counterplan is competitive with aplan when it forces a choice between the two proposals. A counterplanmust compete with the proposition team’s plan if it is to have achance of winning the debate for the opposition team. This is easilyillustrated by extending the above example:

Friend: Gee, I’m hungry. Let’s go get hamburgers.You: Let’s get Chinese food instead.Friend: Well, why don’t we get hamburgers and Chinese food?You: Oh. Okay.

Here we see that the “Chinese food” option hasn’t proven to be areason to reject “hamburgers.” Your counterplan has failed to providea reason to reject your friend’s case. What you need to do is to sub-stantiate your claim of instead, which is the claim of counterplan com-petition. How do you show that a counterplan forces a choice betweenthe plan and the counterplan?

After you present the text of your counterproposal, you must showhow your counterplan competes with the plan. In formal debate, wedemonstrate counterplan competition using the concept of net benefits.That is, in order for the counterplan to be a reason to reject the plan, it

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 151

must be on balance the best option for action or advocacy.Counterplans compete with plans because they are net beneficial. In theongoing dispute about what to eat, you need to convince your friendthat Chinese food is the net beneficial lunch option. There are a fewways you can accomplish this. To establish that the counterplan is netbeneficial in this example, you’ll have to show that Chinese food issuperior to hamburgers – at least in this specific case. There are twobasic kinds of arguments you can make to establish net benefits foryour counterplan in any situation.

First, you can argue that the plan is a bad idea, i.e., you can finddisadvantages to, critiques of, or solvency problems with the proposi-tion team’s plan. In this case, you could:

a) Show that eating hamburgers is bad for one’s diet (calories, fat,cholesterol, etc…). This argument would be a disadvantage tothe plan in that it claims the plan causes some bad effects.

b) Show that eating hamburgers would not alleviate your hunger.This argument would be a solvency answer to the plan becauseit shows that the plan will not solve the stated harm (hunger).

c) Show that the assumption that hamburgers are an acceptablefood is fundamentally flawed. You could argue (from the per-spective, perhaps, of an ethical vegetarian) that consumingmeat is always wrong, and that therefore the plan should notbe endorsed because of the values it rests on.

Second, you can argue that the counterplan is a good idea. That is, youcan find advantages to the counterplan that the proposition team’s plandoes not accrue. In this case, you could:

a) Show that Chinese food tends to contain more vegetables,allowing you to get more vitamins and servings of healthygreens.

b) Show that Chinese food is generally low in fat and cholesterol,making it a healthy cuisine.

All of these arguments serve more or less the same function: They estab-

152


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 152

153


lish that the counterplan is a better option than the plan; it has more netbenefits. The result of net benefits argumentation should always be thatthe counterplan ends up being a reason to reject the plan.

Because counterplans must be net beneficial, they function in precise-ly the same way as a disadvantage. When we argue disadvantages, we aresaying that adoption of the plan will cause some bad result. When you saya counterplan is competitive, what you are really saying to the judge is:“Don’t vote for the plan, because if you do you will forego this superiorpolicy option.” When we argue counterplans, we are saying that adoptionof the plan will cause some bad result. In this case, that bad result is theloss of the superior option of the counterplan.

At one time, it was believed that to compete, counterplans had tobe mutually exclusive with the proposition team’s plan. Mutual exclusiv-ity, simply put, is the idea that the plan and the counterplan literallycannot coexist with each other. There are perishingly few circum-stances in which you can argue that your counterplan is mutually exclu-sive with the plan:

Friend: Gee, I’m hungry. Let’s go get hamburgers.You: Let’s get Chinese food instead.Friend: Well, why don’t we get hamburgers and Chinese food?You: We don’t have enough money to get both.

By arguing that both options cannot be done at the same time, youestablish that they are mutually exclusive with each other. But you stillhaven’t proven that your option is superior. Mutual exclusivity is not agood method for proving counterplan competition. Even if your coun-terplan is mutually exclusive, it must still be net beneficial.

Another way of thinking about counterplans is as an opportunity costof the plan. An opportunity cost is the sacrifice made when selectingone policy over another. Think of it this way: when you choose a par-ticular course of action, you always forego other opportunities. Thishappens in everyday life as well as in public policy decisions. If youchoose to drive to the movie theatre, you have implicitly rejected theother available means of transportation (bus, dogsled, bicycle, skate-board, rickshaw, etc.). Your choice has cost you those other opportuni-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 153

ties. Every decision has opportunity costs. There are always otherthings you could do with the time and energy you invest in a particu-lar course of action.

Government officials deal with the implications of opportunitycosts all the time. It is the responsibility of public policy makers to eval-uate the costs and benefits of policies they implement. Sometimes theyhave to make tight decisions based on available resources – for exam-ple, if there is only a finite amount of resources available to solve agiven problem, legislators may have to choose between several optionsbecause there is simply not enough money to fund everything. Otherdecisions are forced because of political pressures, yet have lastingopportunity costs. One such commitment was the decision in Europeto use North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) instead ofEuropean defense forces to intervene in Kosovo. The decision to useNATO had many opportunity costs: Europe lost the benefits associat-ed with European military integration as well as the opportunity to usethe European Defense force as a legitimate institution. Further, NATOintervention guaranteed the continued involvement of the USA inEuropean affairs, a move that has been criticized by many.

In the end, whether or not you agree that the decision to use NATOwas correct, there is no denying that it had palpable opportunity costs. Informal debate, those opportunity costs of a potential policy decision arethe stuff counterplans are made of. As an opposition debater, your job isto find the most viable opportunity cost of the proposition team’s case anddefend it as well as you can. Try to convince the judge or audience thattheir policy is ultimately undesirable because it necessitates forsakinganother, more beneficial, course of action.

As you can imagine, counterplans are a powerful strategic optionfor the opposition. As a debater, you might quite justifiably be nervousabout debating against counterplans. What is to stop the oppositionteam from simply counterplanning with something that is much, muchbigger than your case? Consider this frightening possibility: You beginthe debate advocating that a commission should be established toinvestigate the return of pilfered relics. You think you’re doing prettywell, and are pleased with your small case, until the opposition coun-terplans with a proposal to give massive food aid to starving refugees

154


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 154

155


in Africa. On balance, their counterplan probably solves a bigger prob-lem than your case and saves more lives. What do you do?

First, don’t panic. This counterplan does not compete with yourproposal. The two policies are cooperative rather than competitive, i.e.,they do not resist each other and instead can (and probably should)work in concert with each other. As in the example of the Chinese foodand hamburgers, you can (and probably should) do both policyoptions. Remember that it is the burden of the counterplan to providea reason to reject the proposition team’s plan. A counterplan must becounter to the plan. If the policies can cooperate; if they do not compete,then the counterplan is not a reason to vote against the proposition.

The proposition team needs to test the competition of the counter-plan so that they can clearly communicate to the judge their argumentthat the counterplan does not compete. In formal debate, we call thiskind of argument a permutation. In its simplest sense, to permute meansto combine. When we permute the plan and the counterplan, we exper-imentally combine them to test how competitive the counterplan is.

.Just as a counterplan tests whether the plan provides a compellingreason to change the present system, so the permutation tests whetherthe counterplan provides a compelling reason to reject the plan.

The ability to argue permutations is the first line of proposition teamdefense against opposition team counterplans.

When you defend the proposition, you should always attempt topermute the opposition counterplan. The permutation argument needsto be advanced at the first opportunity your team has to respond to thecounterplan. Permutations do not need to be complicated; in fact, theyare most effective when they are simply phrased. In the example above,where your team has argued for relic return and the opposition hasargued for food aid, you can simply phrase your permutation argumentas follows:

“Their counterplan is simply not competitive with our plan. It doesnot counter our case. In other words, it is another public policy. Itmight prove that the opposition team has opinions, but it does not

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 155

mean that their opinions undermine the case as presented. We candemonstrate this with the following permutation: it would be pos-sible and net beneficial to do both the plan and the counterplan.You can give back relics and give food aid. Thus, the counterplandoes not provide a reason to reject the plan.”

Notice that this argument does more than just advance a permutation. Italso provides a theoretical justification for the permutation, and in doingso attempts to teach the judge a little something about counterplan com-petition. Theoretical justification is an important component of the argu-ment. Remember that many or most of your judges and audiences will beextremely unfamiliar with the formal debate terms we use here. There is,ultimately, no need to use the word “permutation” to talk about this crit-ical proposition team argument. However, the vocabulary is useful short-hand for the more developed discussions about counterplan theory andpractice that follow later in this chapter.

Counterplan Topicality

Before we move on to discuss types of counterplans, we should offer afew thoughts on counterplan topicality. Some people believe that coun-terplans have to be nontopical. They argue that to effectively challengethe topic, the opposition team can only defend nontopical action. Webelieve that this philosophy is fundamentally bankrupt. The plan is thefocus of the debate. As long as the counterplan is counter to the plan,it is a legitimate subject for discussion. In a debate, the plan becomesthe embodiment of the resolution – it is a living interpretation of thetopic. Once the plan is the interpretation of the topic, any policy that’snot the plan is automatically not the topic. Consider: You would never saythat a disadvantage about the topic is illegitimate because it is about thetopic; yet, folks say this kind of thing all the time about counterplans.Let us emphasize again: The plan is the focus of the debate. It is said thattopical counterplans are unfair because they force the proposition teamto debate against the topic. This is untrue. Once the case for the topichas been made using the plan and its advantages, anything that coun-ters that case, topical or not, is intrinsically counter to the topic.

156


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 156

157



1. Pretend that you are defending a proposition case that has theUnited Nations pay reparations for its inaction in Rwanda.Prepare and deliver a permutation argument for each of the fol-lowing counterplans:• Counterplan: The USA should pay its back dues to the

United Nations.• Counterplan: The Organization of African Unity should

develop an autonomous self-defense force to deter futureconflicts.

• Counterplan: The European Union should adopt a policy tointervene in future African conflicts.

2. Below, find a list of different actions. For each action, think of atleast three opportunity costs you would forsake if you were totake that action.• Intervene, as the government, to stop a strike by workers in

the airline industry.• Criminally penalize chemical industries for water pollution.• Restrict the transfer of copyrighted music on the Internet.• Support World Trade Organization authority to arbitrate

trade disputes.

Types of Counterplans

Just as there are many types of proposition team cases, there are manydifferent types of counterplans that you can learn to use strategicallyand effectively. Counterplans fall into two basic categories: those thatare generic and those that are specific to the plan you are debating. Ageneric counterplan is one that can be argued in a wide variety ofdebates against many different types of proposition cases. A specificcounterplan is targeted directly at the case or plan you are debating

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 157

against. This distinction, while important, may be a bit misleading inthis way: Generic counterplans must always be tailored to the specificproposition plan. Without a strong element of case-specific competi-tion, they will usually fail to persuade your judge because they will notclash directly with the proposition team’s case.

To say that there are many different proposition cases is a grossunderstatement. In the third appendix to this book alone, you will findmore than a thousand potential topics for debate. For each of these top-ics, there are at least dozens of potential different topical cases – evenif you were to use the strictest interpretation of each topic. As a parlia-mentary debater, you will have to be prepared to debate an enormousvariety of specific cases and plans. To be consistently successful on theopposition, then, you will need some generic strategies that can applyto types of plans. Generic counterplans are indispensable for thisendeavor. We will discuss several generic counterplans and explainhow they can be used against a variety of cases.

Agent Counterplans

One thing that almost all plans have in common is that they all have anagent of action. That is, every proposal has an actor who must carry outthe proposition team’s recommendation. In the USA, the agent ofaction is usually the U.S. Federal Government. Sometimes, proposi-tion teams will specify their agent even further and argue that a spe-cific branch (legislative, judicial, executive) or division (i.e., theEnvironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs,Department of Justice, etc…) of the federal government should imple-ment their proposal. In Europe, it is common for proposition teams tosay that their proposal should be enacted by a national government, orperhaps by the European Union or the United Nations. This specifica-tion in the plan is curious, given that it is rarely mandated by the reso-lution for debate. Some teams justify their move to specify an agent ofaction by defining “This House…” as whatever agent they wish to dis-cuss, but there is good reason to be critical of this practice, as we haveshown in the chapter on propositional interpretation. In any case, nomatter the justification, most propositional teams do specify (and are

158


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 158

159


expected to specify) the agent of action for their plan.This specification gives the opposition more than adequate

grounds to what is called an agent counterplan. An agent counterplanis a counterplan that argues that the plan the proposition team implementsthrough one agent of change should instead be implemented through anotheragent of change. So, for example, if a proposition team argues that theUSA should provide free malaria medication for children in CentralAmerica, you might propose a counterplan to enact the basic mandatesof the plan through a different agent:

Counterplan: The World Health Agency should provide free malar-ia medication for children in Central America.

At first glance, it appears that this counterplan does not compete withthe proposition team’s plan. After all, it is possible to act both throughthe World Health Organization and through the U.S. government.But would such cooperative action be net beneficial?

To resolve this question, you’ll have to think back to the compari-son between hamburgers and Chinese food we laid out in the previoussection. Remember that there are two basic kinds of net benefits argu-ments you can make in debates: You can argue that the plan is bad andyou can argue that the counterplan is good. In this case, since the dif-ference between the plan and the counterplan is the agent of imple-mentation, you’ll want to stick to net benefits arguments having to dowith the respective agents. So you’ll need to generate a few argumentsattacking their agent of action. You might phrase your attack like this:

“There are a few reasons that the USA is a bad actor for this poli-cy. First, the USA has a history of using these kinds of humanitar-ian campaigns as cover for military or other bad and dangerousinterventions. Just look at how they use food aid as an excuse todeploy troops and stage covert operations. Second, the USA has aspecifically bad record when it comes to malaria prevention. Afterthe dangerous pesticide DDT was banned in that country, theyproceeded to export and promote it for malaria control worldwide.Surely we don’t want to risk these kinds of consequences.”

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 159

After you argue that their agent of action is bad, you’ll need to defendyour agent of action. You need to show that your proposed alternativeagent will do a good job of addressing the harms specified by theproposition team. You might phrase your defense like this:

“The World Health Organization would be at least as good as theUSA for the distribution of malaria medication and treatment. TheWHO has extensive experience in organizing and carrying outbroad international health campaigns. They also have extensiveinternational support and can draw on a wider range of interna-tional resources and volunteers. The USA is comparatively limitedin these regards.”

When defending this kind of counterplan or any other kind of coun-terplan, you need to advance both of these kinds of arguments. To winthat your counterplan competes with the proposition team’s plan, youmust argue both that the plan is bad and that your counterplan is good.Once you have made these arguments for your counterplan’s competi-tion, it is appropriate to offer some kind of summation that explains tothe judge why the counterplan is a reason to vote for the oppositionteam. This summation might look something like this:

“The bottom line is that the USA is a bad actor for this course ofaction. Our counterplan will better solve the problems of malariain Central America, while avoiding all of the terrible costs histori-cally associated with the USA’s actions. Thus, when weighing youroptions in this round, you should prefer our counterplan andendorse the oppositional stance.”

This summation should be made early and often throughout the oppo-sition speeches in the debate round in order to set up the final decisioncalculus, or final reason to vote, that you present in your last oppositionrebuttal.

When planning what kinds of arguments to make to defend yourcounterplan, always anticipate what your response will be to theproposition team’s inevitable permutation of your counterplan. In this

160


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 160

161


case, the proposition team will no doubt argue that you can and shoulddistribute malaria medication using both the USA and the WorldHealth Organization. While the proposition team is probably right thatyou could act through both agents, they are not necessarily right thatyou should act through both agents. You are questioning net benefits.What are some arguments you can make against this permutation? Forthe most case, you have already made them. If you can show that thereare affirmative reasons not to prefer the proposition team’s agent ofaction, then all of those reasons function as disadvantages to the permuta-tion. That is, they are reasons that the permutation (just like the plan)causes bad things to happen. All the reasons that it is bad to use theUSA as an actor still apply to the permutation, thus the permutation is notnet beneficial. Instead, it is better to prefer the counterplan alone thanthe combination of the plan and the counterplan.

Agent counterplans are a very useful tool for opposition teams. Theabove example shows how you can argue for agents other than theUSA, but the same basic method applies to all agent counterplans.When thinking about agent counterplans, you should be creative.Consider using different agencies within the same government. Forexample, if the proposition team advocates using the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, you might recommend that the plan be done by theCentral Intelligence Agency instead. If they say the plan should bedone by the legislature, think of some reasons why the executivebranch or the judicial branch might be a superior actor. One way toeffectively master agent counterplans is to come up with a list of com-mon agents of action. Then generate arguments about why each is abad agent in general as well as in some specific areas of public policy.Finally, generate arguments about why each is a good agent in thesame categories. This way, you will always be prepared to counterplanwith an alternate agent.

No discussion of agent counterplans would be complete without asection on what we call the states or sub-national governments coun-terplans. These are a specific subgroup of agent counterplans that tryto delegitimize the need for federal action by showing that sub-federalaction is superior to the proposition team’s reliance on the federal gov-ernment. This counterplan originated in policy debate in the USA as a

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 161

way to test the affirmative’s (proposition team’s) use of the U.S.Federal Government as an agent of action. Opposition teams can coun-terplan with state action, saying that action by the 50 states would besuperior to federal action.

This type of counterplan can be used with great success when dis-cussing other regions of the world. Opposition teams can argue thatprovincial, decentralized, or other nonfederal government entities shouldenact the plan’s mandates instead of the federal government. To be netbeneficial, these sub-national counterplans must show that federal actionin the area of the plan is bad. Frequently, opposition teams running thiscounterplan will also claim that their policy is better suited to redress theproposition case’s harm area because states or provinces are better posi-tioned (via efficiency, experimentation, enforcement, or whatever) thanthe federal government to help those in need.

When you are defending the proposition, you will need to be pre-pared to defend your agent of action so that you don’t lose debates toagent counterplans. To do so, you will need to have prepared at leastthree sets of arguments. (1) You need to be able to argue why your spe-cific agent is the best one for the task at hand. (2) You will also need to havea variety of arguments against other potential agents. (3) You are wiseto have a developed defense of your permutation argument. One thingto consider about permutations to agent counterplans is this:Frequently, it is the case that having two agents work at the same prob-lem will produce a kind of double solvency; i.e., the permutation couldpotentially solve the designated problem doubly well. Consider theexample of the USA vs. the WHO in malaria prevention. If bothagents worked at the problem, it might be solved more quickly andwith greater coverage than if either acted alone. The permutation couldsave more lives than either the plan or the counterplan alone. If youcould win this argument, you could argue that the counterplan wastherefore not net beneficial.

What would you say, as the opposition team, if the propositionteam advanced this “double solvency” argument in defense of their per-mutation? Here, the debate gets more complicated. The importantthing to remember is that you must weigh the issues and their associatedimpacts. We will discuss techniques for this process in the chapter on

162


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 162

163


rebuttal skills. For this specific argument, you would do well to answerthat the WHO will solve the problem well enough on its own, and thatthe potential risks of involvement by the USA in the project outweigh,or are more important than, the potential benefits of extra solvency.

Suggested Exercise:

Below we have listed a few common agents of action and a cor-responding public policy area. For each agent, generate threearguments for why this agent would be a good actor in the spec-ified area. Then come up with three arguments for why this agentwould be a bad actor in the specified area. Provide as many spe-cific examples as you can.• USA – peace negotiations in the Middle East• United Nations – peacekeeping operations• Corporations – environmental pollution• USA – War on Drugs• Britain – sanctions on Iraq• European Union – immigration• World Trade Organization – labor law

Study Counterplans

Often, proposition teams choose to advocate a course of action in anarea where the existing research or available information is substan-tially unclear as to either the causes of the harms or the correct way weshould proceed to redress these harms. This confusion happens all thetime in complex issues of public policy. In these cases, a good optionfor the opposition team is to propose a study counterplan. The studycounterplan is a generic counterplan that says that instead of acting inthe specified area of the proposition or the proposition team’s case, weshould instead study the problem some more to find the most desirablecourse of action.

This counterplan is a great option for opposition teams, because it

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 163

applies to a wide variety of propositions and specific proposition teamcases. When you argue a study counterplan, you need to establish thatthere is great controversy over the area the proposition case deals with.You need to prove that a study might be the appropriate course ofaction to pursue in the harm area elucidated by the proposition team.

Public policy advocates routinely decide to study rather than pur-sue a more direct course of action. For example, recently in Illinois, thegovernor was confronted with the need to make a decision about thatstate’s death penalty. Much new evidence revealed disturbing inconsis-tencies in the application of the death penalty in that state and others.In fact, several convictions had been overturned as new evidence cameto light. Many critics argued that because of inconsistent applicationsand dubious due process protections, the governor should act to banthe death penalty in Illinois. Instead of taking this course of action, thegovernor decided to declare a moratorium on the death penalty andstudy its application to find a way to reform death penalty policies andprocedures. This action is a real-life example of deferring to a studycounterplan. The governor decided that he did not have enough infor-mation to make a decision about banning the death penalty, and insteaddecided to study the problem to reach the optimal solution.

When should you use study counterplans? There are two basic cir-cumstances in which they are eminently useful tools for the opposition:

• solution optimization• inadequate information for decision making

Initially, study counterplans can try and optimize a solution for theproblem area outlined by the proposition team. When the propositionteam confronts a difficult problem with a dubious solution, you shouldconsider using a study counterplan. Argue that the counterplan is netbeneficial because it will create the information necessary to choose thebest solution for the problem at hand.

Study counterplans are also useful when you can show that theproposition team is acting on inadequate information. In most societies,even relatively open democracies, the information necessary to makean informed decision about a problem is difficult to find and often

164


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 164

165


highly classified. All too often, debaters (just like journalists and otherpublic policy opinion makers) simply do not have all the informationthey need to draw an informed conclusion about the topic at hand. Ifyou can establish that this is the case in your debate, if you can showthat the proposition team may literally not know what they are talkingabout, then you may be able to win that a study counterplan is thesuperior course of action.

You need to be careful and specific when writing the text of yourstudy counterplan. In general, it is vital that you have an actor – a com-mission that will do the actual studying. You will also need to have adesignated length for the study – usually, anywhere from six to 18months, although it could be longer or shorter depending on yourassessment of what is needed. Finally, you need to make sure that thecounterplan mandates some sort of action at the study’s end. If theproposition team’s plan was to have the U.S. Federal Governmentabolish the death penalty, for example, your study counterplan mightlook a lot like this:

Counterplan: The U.S. Federal Government should immediatelyimpose a moratorium on the death penalty. A blue-ribbon commis-sion should be appointed to study how the death penalty is applied,with special attention paid to inconsistencies in due process and eth-nicity-based application. This study will last 18 months, and subse-quent policy action will be based on recommendations of that com-mission. Opposition speeches will clarify intent.

Notice the last sentence, “opposition speeches will clarify intent.” It isa useful phrase to include at the end of any counterplan text, becauseit creates leeway for the opposition team to interpret their counterplanin light of any objections or requests for clarification that the proposi-tion team might offer.

As a proposition team debating against a study counterplan, youhave a few options. Initially, you should always defend your course ofaction with as much specific and recent information as you can. Try toshow that there is no need for a study – that you have enough relevantinformation to make the decision now. You should also argue that

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 165

study will take too long and fail to resolve critical harms that are hap-pening right now. Try to show that there is an affirmative reason toadopt your proposal now, rather than waiting for a potentially incon-clusive and tediously boring study to reach a dubious conclusion.Finally, you should argue that the results of the study will be biased.Ask the opposition team who will be on the commission. Ask them whowill appoint these members. Argue that their so-called “blue-ribbon”commission will most likely reflect the dominant paradigm – preciselythe thing your plan tries to combat.

As the opposition team, plan in advance for your answers to thesequestions and arguments. On the issue of specification about the com-mission’s content, consider directing the same questions back at theproposition team. Ask them who will be implementing their plan andhow those people will be chosen. Insist that your counterplan be heldto the same standards of specificity as the plan.

Suggested Exercise:

Imagine that you are debating on the opposition. The propositionteam’s plan says that the government should build a large, central-ized, underground storage facility for nuclear waste. You think youcan prove that there is a substantial risk that such a facility mightcause lasting environmental damage. You decide to argue that thegovernment should study these potential consequences beforedeciding on a course of action. Write the text for your counterplan,using the above example as a model.

Delay Counterplans

Public policies do not simply come into being ex nihilo (Latin for “outof nothing”), just as they do not spring full-grown from the heads of theprogenitive propositional team. Every public policy has an implemen-tational stage whereby its mandates are actually carried out by the var-ious government or private functionaries whose job it is to implementpublic policies. Some implementation works better than other imple-mentation. Consider how many international treaties, for example, are

166


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 166

167


inadequately enforced or not enforced at all – the United NationsDeclaration on Human Rights is, in theory, a mainstay of internation-al law, yet is almost never enforced in any meaningful way. When theleader of a nation issues an executive order, many questions still remainas to how and when its dictates will be actualized.

These implementation considerations are fertile ground for all kindsof opposition arguments. Many policies, though noble ideas, are morelikely than not simply to remain under-enforced, under-funded, or simplynot implemented for any number of reasons. Perhaps the elite establish-ment has a vested interest in seeing that their money or power is not redis-tributed. Perhaps there are latent or well-entrenched biases in a culturethat will ensure that change running counter to those biases will proceedslowly, if at all. How a policy is implemented is often just as important asthe specific content of that policy itself. There are several types of coun-terplans that compete not on specifics in the proposition team’s plan (i.e.,in the text of their plan), but on the circumstances under which that planmight come to be implemented or adopted.

One important consideration for policy adoption is when a policy isimplemented. Sometimes, policies are simply delayed due to exigentcircumstances. Legislators may wait to put some economic policies intoeffect while there is a recession. Spending priorities may be frozen orreoriented in an emergency. Sometimes, policies are delayed due toexternal political circumstances. A president may wait to implement apolicy until a critical constituency is developed or until there is enoughpopular support to ensure that the policy will be carried through.

Consideration of when is the basis for a type of counterplan knownas the delay counterplan. A delay counterplan suggests that the judge oraudience withhold implementation of the proposition team’s plan untila specific time or condition named by the opposition team. For exam-ple, the opposition could argue that a policy to raise taxes should bedelayed until the next fiscal year, so that consumers and businesseswould have time to adjust to the economic transition. A similar policyof delayed implementation was used to decide when the euro would beintroduced as currency.

Delay counterplans can also condition implementation of the proposi-tion team’s plan. That is, they can argue that the plan should not be

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 167

adopted until such time as certain political or social conditions havebeen met. These counterplans are very useful. Imagine that a proposi-tion team argued that the global community should lift sanctionsagainst Iraq. As the opposition, you could counterplan to lift sanctionsagainst Iraq only when Iraq has agreed to allow United Nationsweapons inspectors in its borders and secure sites. This delay counter-plan conditions implementation of the plan on the fulfillment of someexternal situation.

You can see that these counterplans are similar to study counter-plans in that both institute delays of implementation. The importantdifference is that study counterplans do not commit to what specificcourse of action will be taken at the end of the period of study, whiledelay counterplans simply postpone implementation of a specific plan.

Delay counterplans, as in the above example of conditioning sanc-tions, compete based on opposition expectations about implementation. Indebate, often we say that the opposition should have a reasonableexpectation that they will be able to clash directly with the propositionteam’s case. This theoretical basis for almost every topicality argumentis widely accepted among judges and debaters alike.

This counterplan competition argument can be extended toquestions of plan implementation in a few ways. First, as an opposi-tion debater, you can argue that you should be able to assume thatthe proposition team’s plan is being advanced unconditionally. If thisis the case, then conditioning or delaying the plan, as the counter-plan does, is certainly fair game for the opposition. If the propositionteam, for whatever reason, says that they are in fact advancing theplan conditionally, you should take advantage of this opening forhumor. Ask them what conditions they are putting on the plan andwhen, exactly, they were planning to inform you of these hiddenconditions so that you could debate them. Point out that these sametactics are often used by used car salespeople, who lure you into theshowroom with promises of low prices only to jack up the priceslater, using previously undisclosed costs. This argument strategy isknown in the business as the “bait and switch,” as the propositionteam is luring you in to debate one type of policy, only to switch thetarget on you once you’ve committed.

168


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 168

169


Second, you can argue that in formal debates, we presume the con-sideration of the proposition team’s plan in real time, meaning that thequestion for debate is whether their proposal should be adopted at theconclusion of the debate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the proposi-tion team to prove their proposal should be adopted immediately … notwhenever they get around to it, or when the stars are in the rightarrangement, or when swallows return to San Juan Capistrano bear-ing the corpse of Jimmy Hoffa, or when any other number of externalcircumstances resolve themselves.

Delay counterplans are certainly controversial among people whothink about formal debate theory. It might surprise or frighten you, forexample, to see the opposition team arguing a counterplan that appearsto contain your whole plan. This kind of reaction is normal. Take sol-ace in the fact that there is by no means a consensus on the legitimacyof this type of counterplan. Whatever your position on the legitimacyof the counterplan, however, you will still have to know how to answerit when you debate it as a proposition team member.

In many ways, you should answer this kind of counterplan inthe same way as a study counterplan. Your first line of defenseshould be a set of arguments about why the plan should be donenow rather than waiting. Talk graphically about the lives that willbe lost or the rights that will be violated while the opposition teamwould have us sit around, twiddling our thumbs, waiting for thedesignated time of implementation.

You should also be prepared to debate counterplans that conditionplan implementation. One of the best ways to answer these counter-plans is to argue that the condition set by the opposition will never bemet. In the Iraq example mentioned earlier, you might simply contend(based amply on past experience) that Iraq will never agree in goodfaith to such a condition.Given that fact, you should add, the opposi-tion’s counterplan will never actually end up lifting sanctions. Then,you should reiterate the need to lift sanctions. Explain the horrificimpacts that sanctions have on the people of Iraq. Try and convince thejudge that it is better to go ahead and act to remediate these horribleconsequences than to wait for some far-fetched condition to be met,given that the condition will most likely never be met in any case.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 169

Consultation Counterplans

We will discuss one final type of generic counterplan, although thereare many more. Consultation counterplans are a type of implementationcounterplan that mirror the delay counterplan in many ways. A con-sultation counterplan argues that we should consult another relevantactor as to whether or not the proposition team’s plan should be imple-mented. That alternate actor is therefore given a kind of veto powerover the adoption of the proposition team’s plan. If the alternate actorsays yes, the plan is adopted. If the alternate actor says no, the plan isnot adopted.

Let’s say that you are debating a proposition team that advocatesthe following plan: NATO should expand its membership to includethe Baltic states. This plan is ripe for a consultation counterplan. Whenyou try to find grounds for a consultation counterplan, think to your-self: what actors might be angered or otherwise substantially hurt byadoption of the plan? In this case, the obvious answer is Russia, anation that has in the past made threats about what might happen ifNATO were to expand without explicit consultation. As the oppositionteam, you might counterplan this way:

Counterplan: NATO will consult with the Russian government onthe issue of expansion to include the Baltic states. Implementationof expansion plans will be made contingent on Russia’s explicitapproval. Opposition speeches will clarify intent.

You should argue that the counterplan is net beneficial because it doesnot anger Russia. In this situation, it would be appropriate to arguesome sort of NATO-Russia relations disadvantage off the case, claim-ing that this disadvantage is a net benefit to the counterplan. What dowe mean by this?

Counterplans can often compete on the basis of what we call exter-nal net benefits. These net benefits are usually disadvantages to whichthe plan links but the counterplan does not. In this case, you couldprobably argue convincingly that the plan would anger Russia sub-stantially because, by not consulting them, it would send a message

170


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 170

171


that Russia was cut out of the communications loop or was otherwisenot substantively important enough to be consulted on the matter ofNATO expansion. We say that the counterplan solves or avoids the riskof the disadvantage link because it does engage in active consultation,as opposed to the plan, which continues to act in a unilateral and (darewe say it) profoundly headstrong manner. The consultation counter-plan thus competes based on external net benefits.

Otherwise, the counterplan competes in much the same way as theconditional implementation variant on the delay counterplan we discussedearlier. It simply puts a condition on implementation of the propositionteam’s case: If this external actor says “yes,” then we will implement theplan. You can defend the counterplan theoretically in many of the wayslisted above. Be creative with your consultation counterplans. Think:who would be the interested actors in this policy calculation? Consider,for example, that the World Trade Organization is involved in moni-toring all kinds of domestic and multilateral regulations. Perhaps theyshould be consulted about the possibility of new regulations to ensurethat those regulations will not be struck down.

You may be skeptical of this kind of counterplan at first. Whatpermutation jumps immediately to mind? At first blush, it seemsthat the proposition team could just argue a permutation wherebyone could consult Russia and then do the plan. As the oppositionteam, you should argue that this permutation still links to the dis-advantage and potentially links more than the plan action alone.Consider: If NATO were to consult Russia and go ahead withexpansion regardless, it would be a textbook case of bad faith nego-tiation. After such a meeting, why would Russia ever trust negotia-tion with NATO again? Such an incident could poison the well ofgood feelings between NATO and Russia, and potentially impedeall future possibilities for constructive and cooperative communica-tion. In this respect, the permutation may accrue the link to theNATO-Russian relations disadvantage considerably more than justthe plan alone: The plan just does not consult, while the permuta-tion consults in a knowingly fraudulent manner. The permutation isnot real consultation. It is merely notification, and should be treat-ed as such.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 171

When you argue for the opposition with a consultation counterplan,you need to remember to establish that the plan does not (and cannot, forthe same reasons discussed above as to why a plan cannot be condition-al) itself provide a potential veto power to any other entity.

When you argue for the proposition against consultation coun-terplans, you need to remember not to let the counterplan steal yourcase. Sound like perplexing advice? Consider the way in which thisand other counterplans function. Smart opposition teams will try tosteal as much of your case as possible. This “theft” is good defensivestrategy. To get the most edge against the proposition team, smartopposition teams will try to co-opt as much of the propositionteam’s plan and advocacy as they think they can reasonably getaway with. Exclusionary counterplans, which we will discuss later, arethe culmination of this drive. The strategic advantage of the con-sultation counterplan and others of its ilk is that that they co-optmost (if not all) of the proposition team’s case. The counterplan willprobably end up doing the plan, but will wait to do so until the rel-evant actors have given their consent.

Practically, for the proposition team, this means that the oppositionwill be able to argue that all the reasons that the plan is a good idea arenow reasons to endorse the opposition, because: (1) The oppositioncounterplan solves the harms and advantages outlined by the proposi-tion team; and (2) The counterplan accounts for the risk of a link to thedisadvantage that the proposition team’s plan necessarily accrues.

What to do if you are the proposition team? The wisest courseof action is usually to argue that the counterplan will not be ableto do the plan because the relevant actor will say no in consulta-tion. This strategy may seem dangerous, because you are in effectconceding the link to the net benefit disadvantage. In the Russiaexample, this proposition team strategy would involve concedingthat the plan would anger Russia. It is tempting, as a propositionspeaker, to try and have it both ways in this situation. Don’t be asucker. Instead, heavily contest the impact to the disadvantageand then argue that the impacts to the case advantages outweighany potential risk of angering Russia. The alternative is far worse.If you let the opposition get away with a decent possibility that

172


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 172

173


their counterplan will implement your plan’s mandates, they’reprobably going to win. At the end of the debate, the counterplanwill probably solve the case advantages and avoid the disadvan-tage, while the plan will only solve the case advantages and defi-nitely link to the disadvantage. In order to avoid this high-riskrebuttal situation, you should instead disarm the opposition byarguing that Russia will say no and that the counterplan will neverin fact implement the plan mandates. Then, all you need to do towin the debate is to prove that the impacts to the case outweighthe impacts to the disadvantage.

Notice that the consultation counterplan applies especially well tovery small proposition team cases whereby the proposition team doesnot have very large advantages to weigh against the risk of the opposi-tion’s comparatively large external net benefit.

Suggested Exercise:

Below find a list of potential actions. For each action, pick anactor to consult about that action and explain why they shouldbe consulted. In effect, you are here writing a consultation coun-terplan and constructing a disadvantage to non-consultation.Explain why that actor should be consulted and what might hap-pen if they were not consulted. Be specific. • environmental regulations• setting wage standards• immigration reform• elimination of racial profiling• pulling out of the World Trade Organization

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 173

Plan/Case Specific Counterplans

We have discussed several types of generic counterplans. You may havefigured out by now that even the label “generic” is misleading for thesecounterplans, which must always be substantially adapted to the propo-sition case they are designed to defeat in any given round. A second typeof counterplan is a plan or case-specific counterplan. These counterplans areadapted very specifically to respond to the mandates or advantages of theproposition team’s case. These counterplans fall into three basic cate-gories: counterplans that compete based on solvency, counterplans thatneutralize advantages, and exclusionary counterplans.

Initially, opposition teams can argue counterplans that competebased on substantial, exclusive, solvency differentials. These coun-terplans usually go in the so-called opposite direction of the propositionteam’s plan. For example, if the proposition team argues that moregovernment regulation is the best solution to environmental pollu-tion, an opposition team might productively argue that a superiorsolution would be a deregulation counterplan. There is in fact a sub-stantial debate about the comparative virtues of government-basedas opposed to market-based solutions to environmental problems.When you debate on the opposition, you should consider arguingderegulation as a productive solvency-based counterplan as aresponse to regulation cases, and vice-versa. The advantage of sucha counterplan is that it goes in the opposite direction of the proposi-tion case’s mandates and becomes a competitive alternative. On theopposition, you can make a good case for why deregulation address-es the given harm better than regulation. The exercises belowencourage you to come up with your own arguments to substantiateboth sides of this debate.

The important thing to remember about this sort of counterplan isthe debate about the permutation. What is the logical proposition teampermutation? It is to both regulate and deregulate to solve the harm.On the opposition side, you should argue that this permutation is inco-herent and infeasible – one could not conceivably regulate and dereg-

174


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 174

175


ulate the same area at the same time. Argue that the judge must chooseone option, and then try to prove that deregulation is the superioroption using the method already demonstrated earlier:

• Show that their plan is bad. In this case, show that regulation is a badsolution, perhaps because it causes bad external consequences orsimply fails to solve the problem.

• Show that your counterplan is good. In this case, prove that deregu-lation accrues multiple advantages and solves the problem better thanregulation.

• Weigh the potential costs and benefits. In summation, show the judgethat, on balance, deregulation is the superior alternative because itredresses more significant harms than regulation.

This counterplan is not the only one of its kind. Other examples ofcomparisons include: unilateral vs. multilateral action, criminal vs. civilpenalties, or compulsory vs. voluntary incentives.

A second type of case-specific counterplan is designed to neutral-ize advantages to the case. In formal debate, we call this counterplanningout advantages. This practice is different from all of the other types ofcounterplans mentioned in this way: When you counterplan out advantages,you are not necessarily trying to make your counterplan compete. What doesthis puzzling claim mean? We have just spent several pages trying toteach you how to make your counterplans competitive.

Sometimes counterplans don’t necessarily have to be competitive.Consider that at the end of the debate, a judge draws up a kind of bal-ance sheet to determine what each side has won or lost. In a debatewhere the proposition team won their advantage, and the oppositionteam won their disadvantage, that sheet might look something like this:

Proposition Team: Opposition Team:Advantage Disadvantage

What if you could neutralize the proposition team’s advantage? In thatcase, you would doubtless win because you would succeed in tippingthe balance sheet in your favor. This is why the opposition sometimes

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 175

counterplans out advantages. When they do so, they argue a counterplan thatsolves the proposition team’s advantage, thereby capturing it for their side.

Imagine that the proposition team argues a case that says that thegovernment should provide single-payer health insurance for all poten-tial recipients. Their advantage claim is that such a policy wouldincrease research and development on the part of private industriesbecause the market would be bigger. On the opposition, you couldcounterplan to neutralize this advantage by saying that the governmentshould fund additional, public, research and development. This coun-terplan would solve the advantage, ensuring that both sides accrue theresearch and development advantage. The important thing to realizewhen employing this strategy is to make sure that your counterplanavoids the link to the disadvantage. In this case, the disadvantagemight be that single-payer health insurance is bad because it hurts theprivate insurance market. Your counterplan avoids this disadvantage,setting up the following judge balance sheet:

Proposition Team: Opposition Team:Advantage Advantage

Disadvantage

Opposition most likely wins, because they also solve the propositionteam’s advantage, yet avoid the insurance industry collapse disadvan-tage. The interesting thing about counterplans that neutralize advan-tages is that they don’t really have to be competitive in the traditionalsense. The proposition team can certainly permute the counterplan,but such a move won’t really get them anywhere, since both teams willstill accrue the same advantage even after the permutation.

To avoid these counterplans when you argue for the proposition,you need to make sure that your advantages are germane to your plan.That is, you need to do your best to ensure that your plan is the onlyway such advantages could be achieved.

From an opposition perspective, this kind of counterplan is emi-nently useful for countering the flood of proposition team advantagesthat are often only barely related to the proposed plan. Feel free just tocounterplan them out to neutralize the advantages. Some judges may

176


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 176

177


say you can’t argue more than one counterplan. In this case, considerconsolidating your counterplans so that you only have one counterplanwith three or four different mandates.

Exclusionary Counterplans

A final type of case-specific counterplan is the exclusionary counterplan.A fairly advanced type of counterplan, it is an extremely powerfulweapon for the opposition. Sometimes proposition teams will argueplans with several different mandates or components. You may havearguments against some, but not all, of their mandates. In this case, youmight want to consider using an exclusionary counterplan. An exclu-sionary counterplan endorses some, but not all, of the propositionteam’s plan. This type of counterplan competes on based on argumentsabout why the excluded parts of the plan are bad. Exclusionary coun-terplans are a way for the opposition to focus the debate back on areasthey might be more familiar with, or areas they feel are more advanta-geous for them to discuss.

Public policy makers endorse exclusionary counterplans all thetime. For example, when the U.S. Congress was debating new air pol-lution and emissions regulations for automobiles, they were consider-ing adapting sweeping reforms applying to all vehicles. Then someoneproposed light truck exemptions from that legislation. The legislationwith the exemption was, after some debate, adopted.

As an opposition debater, think of exclusion counterplans as “theplan, except…” In order to win that your exception is net beneficial,you have to win a disadvantage related to the specific topic or item thatyou exempt from their plan. Let’s say that the proposition team arguedthe following plan:

The U.S. Federal Government should restrict the export of all pes-ticides currently banned for use in that country.

You might happen to know that some of these pesticides have unique-ly beneficial aspects for the economies of other countries. The Mexicantimber export industry, for example, is extremely reliant on the pesti-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 177

cide chlordane to kill termites in their lumber stacked for export. Also,DDT is very useful for malaria eradication. You could exempt one orboth of these pesticides in your counterplan:

The U.S. Federal Government should restrict the export of all pes-ticides currently banned for use in that country except for chlor-dane and DDT.

The net benefits to your counterplan would be arguments about why itwould be good to continue limited exports of chlordane and DDT.

As a proposition team, your best defense against exclusionary counter-plans is good, careful plan writing. Don’t write mandates into your plan thatyou aren’t prepared to defend. In this pesticide example, it might have beenwise not to use the word “all,” as this word arguably gives the oppositionteam plenty of ground to argue their exclusionary counterplan.


1. Make three arguments that show why government regulation isthe best way to solve environmental problems such as air andwater pollution.

2. Make three arguments that show why deregulation and its subse-quent reliance on corporate action is the best way to address envi-ronmental problems such as air and water pollution.

Final Notes on Counterplans

This chapter has by no means exhausted the available theory on coun-terplans and responses to counterplans. As a way of concluding ourexamination of counterplans, we wish to address a few other issuesrelated to their strategic use. First, we will talk a bit more about theproposition team’s practice of permutations. Then, we will address theissue of counterplan advocacy: Can you have more than one counter-plan? What happens if a counterplan is proven to be noncompetitive?

178


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 178

179


Recall that permutations test the competition of a counter-plan. That is, they test whether the counterplan does, in fact, pro-vide a reason to reject the proposition team’s plan. There are acouple of important things you need to keep in mind about argu-ing permutations:

They must include the whole plan. It might be temptingfor proposition teams to remove parts of their plan to which the oppo-sition has made compelling arguments. This kind of permutation iscalled a severance permutation. A severance permutation contains onlypart of (rather than all of) the proposition team’s plan. We use theword “severance” because this kind of permutation severs, or removes,part of the proposition team’s plan.

Severance permutations are generally thought to be unacceptablebecause they do not actually prove that the counterplan is not compet-itive. The counterplan is a reason to reject the whole plan as initiallypresented. Just because you could combine part of the plan with thecounterplan, it does not therefore follow that the counterplan does notcompete with the plan.

Some people also argue that severance permutations are unfair tothe opposition. These people argue that the proposition team shouldnot have the ability to change their plan in the middle of the debate,because the opposition team has already predicated their strategy onthe original presentation of the plan.

Permutations do not, however, have to include

the whole counterplan. This is a common mistake madeby debaters. A permutation should include the whole plan and allor any part of the counterplan. Why is this? Consider the followingscenario:

You are debating for the proposition, defending a plan to reformnational library acquisition policies. It’s a small plan, but an effectiveone. The opposition team counterplans to ban reform of nationallibrary acquisition policies and to provide comprehensive nationalhealth insurance.

The counterplan bans the plan and does something else. Uh-oh.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 179

How can the proposition team win now, given that they can’t com-bine the plan and the counterplan? The answer is simple. Theproposition team’s permutation should advocate the whole plan andpart of the counterplan, in this case, provide comprehensive nationalhealth insurance. Otherwise, opposition teams could always justcounterplan to ban the plan and do something else, an unfair advan-tage for that side, to be sure.

Permutations do not have to be topical. This shouldbe a common-sense adage, given what you already know about thefunction of a permutation. Permutations are a test of the competi-tion of the counterplan, and not necessarily a policy option advocat-ed by the proposition team (although some proposition teams will,from time to time, reserve the right to advocate their permutations,usually in response to some perceived or actually egregious advoca-cy shift by the opposition team). Thus permutations do not have thesame on-face topicality burdens as the proposition team’s plan.Consider also that if permutations had to be topical, all nontopicalcounterplans would automatically be competitive, quite a disadvantage forproposition teams.

There are a few leftover questions to consider when arguing andplanning to argue counterplans on the opposition side.

Can you run more than one counterplan? Of courseyou can. There is no logical reason not to. Counterplans test the via-bility and desirability of the proposition team’s case. There is no rea-son to limit the opposition’s ability to contest the proposition team’scase. Some judges may disagree with this, however. In this case, con-sider consolidating your counterplans into one, multi-pronged, poli-cy initiative. However, be careful of biting off more than you canchew. Counterplans tend to complicate debates greatly. Multiplecounterplans can do so exponentially. Don’t put yourself in a posi-tion for the last rebuttal where you are defending multiple, confus-ing policy options. You probably won’t be able to cover all the rele-vant issues, and the judge will most likely think you are incompetentfor biting off more than you can chew.

180


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 180

181


What happens when a counterplan is found to be

noncompetitive? This is an important question. There are twoschools of thought on this issue. One school believes that once acounterplan has been argued, the opposition team is stuck with itfor good or for ill, much as a proposition team should be stuck witha bankrupt plan.

We do not necessarily agree with this way of thinking aboutcounterplans. Recall that the purpose of a counterplan is to test thedesirability and opportunity cost of the proposition team’s case. Ifthe counterplan is found not to be an opportunity cost of the plan,it can simply “go away;” that is, the opposition may feel free toabandon its advocacy of the counterplan. This is said to make thecounterplan conditional. Arguments advanced in debates are oftencalled conditional; which is to say that they may be dropped at anytime without repercussion to their advocates. Usually this phrase isused in the context of conditional counterplans, which can be droppedif undesirable without forfeiture of the debate.

Many people have argued that conditional counterplans are illegit-imate and unfair, because they force the proposition team to invest con-siderable time in responding to the counterplan, at which point theopposition may simply abandon the counterplan. While this plea forfairness is understandable, in many ways it misses the point of what itmeans to argue a counterplan. A counterplan is always “just a test” ofthe proposition team’s plan.

When the proposition team argues against a counterplan, they arecontending that the counterplan is not relevant in the debate because itdoes not run counter to the plan. Thus, if the opposition team choosesto abandon the counterplan, they are essentially admitting their agree-ment with the proposition team’s claim: that the argument is no longerrelevant to the debate. Of course, in debate, any irrelevant argumentcan be removed from debate without penalty.

Further, all arguments in debate are conditional in the sensethat they may be dropped or discontinued at any time. If you madea series of attacks on the proposition team’s stated harms initially,and then decided not to extend those arguments in your rebuttal

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 181

speech, would you then be making those arguments conditionally?The answer is yes. All arguments are conditional because all argu-ments are advanced provisionally, accounting for the chance of sat-isfactory refutation.

As you can see, there are many difficult questions you will have toface directly related to questions of counterplan theory. Nevertheless,we believe that it is important for debaters to learn to use and answerthese powerful and relevant opposition team tools.

182


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 182

183

CHAPTER 9:

OPPOSITION

STRATEGY

– CRITIQUING

Introduction to the Practice of Critiquing

Through our relentless pursuit of colorful similes, we have already toldyou that arguments are like automobiles, dinner invitations, small mon-keys, and cans of ham. Arguments are also like houses in that they reston foundations. Recall that in the chapter on argumentation wedetailed how arguments are constructed: They have supporting prem-ises, warrants, and data. Complex arguments, like the kind made bythe body of a proposition team’s case, are composed of many different,smaller arguments that (hopefully) unite to make a cohesive whole,much like the robots that assemble to form Voltron. A propositionteam’s case, therefore, rests on a fairly broad foundation composed ofother arguments and the support that those arguments rely on. Whilethis broad foundation can render a case fairly stable, it can also be theundoing of a proposition team’s case if approached correctly.

You may have had the occasion to play the popular block-stacking

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 183

game Jenga. In Jenga, many small blocks are stacked on each other,cross-hatched to make an irregular square tower. Participants removeblocks until someone is unfortunate enough to remove the block thatcauses the whole structure to come crashing down. That load-bearingblock is a fundamental, even critical, part of the whole structure of thetower. Many of the other blocks are essentially trivial, and can be treat-ed as such. They can be added and removed with no cost to overallstructural stability.

As with Jenga, so it is with arguments. All arguments makeassumptions and leaps of reasoning. Some of the assumptions are morecritical than others for the overall stability of the argument. Considerthe following example: You are taking a class on ancient civilizations atyour university. Your final paper assignment is to write a comprehen-sive report on one of the Earth’s ancient civilizations. After weeks ofhard work, you turn in your magnum opus – a history of Atlantis. Theteacher fails you. Horrified by this turn of events, you go to her and askwhy. She says that there were some things about the paper thatimpressed her. For example, she was excited and intrigued by yourdetailed and informed discussions of native Atlantean foods, dances,and cultural practices. She thought that your position on Atlanteancivil-military relations was quite innovative. In fact, it was a spectacu-lar paper. There was just one small problem: There is no such civiliza-tion as Atlantis. Oops. You made a fundamental assumption thatturned out to be incorrect. (Jenga!)

Some assumptions, like the Atlantis assumption, are just plainwrong. Others are both wrong and dangerous. Imagine that you and afriend arrive in San Francisco for a sightseeing tour. You’ve never beento the city, but you hear that it’s lovely. After leaving the airport, yourent a car and take the map offered by the attendant. Since you are abetter driver, you pilot the car while your friend navigates. After a lit-tle bit of driving, you notice that the streets you are on don’t quitematch up with the streets on the map, but you assume that’s justbecause you are lost. You are very lost. You are so lost, in fact, thatwhile trying to get to Berkeley you drive into the Bay. As you are sink-ing, you realize the problem: The map you were given, that youassumed was correct, was in fact a map of Chicago. Oops. You made a

184


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 184

185

OPPOSITION STRATEGY – CRITIQUING

fundamental assumption that turned out to be incorrect and danger-ous. (Jenga!)

Debate arguments make assumptions that are incorrect and poten-tially dangerous all the time. But debate rounds are not (perhaps for-tunately) like Jenga. It is very rare that you will be able to identify asingle argument which, when pulled out and examined, will bringdown the entire position of the other side. However, the investigationand criticism of fundamental assumptions is an invaluable part ofdebate for both the proposition and opposition sides. This notion mayseem obvious, given that the gist of this book thus far has been to showthe roots and assumptions of debate arguments and techniques of allkinds. The goal of this chapter is to show how the practice of critiquingarguments and their accompanying fact sets can be used as a strategicargument type for use in debate.

You have already learned that the most effective way to refute anargument is not by simply providing an assertive counter-claim.Arguments are most effectively refuted from within their own sub-stance; that is, sophisticated debaters know that arguments are bestunraveled by focusing on the language, reasoning, underlying assumptions,expert testimony, interpretations, and proofs of the opponent. We answer argu-ments like this all the time. When you answer a disadvantage, youattack its reasoning, testimony, expert testimony, and proofs.Whenever you argue against a proposition team’s case, if you are mak-ing sophisticated arguments, you are doing much the same thing.

In academia or public policy analysis, the practice of criticism isalmost ubiquitous. One important thing to remember about argu-ment critique is that it is all about where you look, and from whatperspective. You may have heard the old story about the three blindmen who are called to examine an elephant. One feels its side anddetermines that it is a piece of luggage. Another feels its foot andsays it is a stool. A third feels its tail and calls it a snake. They are allwrong, of course, but from their perspective they are correct. Ourpoint here is not to vitiate radical perspectivism – after all, in thisstory at least we know there is an elephant and so are not in the leastworried about the possibility of implementing policies based onthese incomplete worldviews. In public policy decisions, however, it

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 185

is not so easy to identify the elephant or even to know that there isan animal being examined in the first place.

The closest thing to an elephant we have in any formal debate, atleast from the perspective of the opposition, is the presentation of thefirst proposition speaker. That presentation is not merely (if it can beconsidered to be so at all) a plea for endorsement of a particular pro-posal. Rather, it is a kind of text to be interpreted and analyzed. Everycomponent of the proposition team’s argument set is potentially up fordebate in any number of ways.

This idea of speeches as texts is important, and one that is criticalto understanding how the practice of critique works in debate. If theproposition team’s case is a kind of text, it is therefore up for interpre-tation just like any other text. The proposition team’s case should notnecessarily be thought of as a set of presumptively true facts. It is, how-ever, usually presented as such. This presentation should pose no greatbarrier to a critical opposition team who want to reinterpret the propo-sition team’s presentation in a manner that will be conducive to theirultimate victory in the debate.

Let’s see how critiquing is done in practice. When presented witha particular fact set, people from different intellectual traditions andperspectives will almost invariably look at it differently, with differentresults. These multiple perspectives can be an informative basis forengaging arguments with sustained critique. Let’s take the example ofthe death penalty to see how this works in practice. Here’s a descrip-tion of a state of affairs, one that could very easily be a component ofany number of proposition team cases:

A man is arrested for killing someone. After being given dueprocess, appropriate prosecution, and trial in front of a jury of hispeers, he is found guilty of murder. Once his appeals have beenrejected, he is executed.

Different critics will have different commentaries to offer in responseto this description of a state of affairs.

A critic who argues from the perspective of the Critical Legal Studies(CLS) movement might point out that what this description leaves out is

186


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 186

187


a critical examination of the part played by class interests in this wholeprocess. She might point out that the poor or otherwise indigent are morelikely to be arrested and indicted for any number of crimes, including mur-der. She might also call into question the seemingly neutral description of“due process” in this text, given the abundant evidence that suggests thateconomic disparities dramatically affect the quality of justice given todefendants in criminal courts. Among other factors, your net worth direct-ly determines what kind of lawyer will defend you: an overworked publicdefender or a specialized private attorney. Finally, she might suggest thatthe jury was most likely not a jury of his actual peers. She might say thatthis description of the situation is, at best, misleading because in its omis-sions it inaccurately describes the situation. At worst, this descriptionmight be dangerous because it seeks to paint as neutral a process that isfundamentally unfair and unjust. Several fundamental components of thedescription have been substantively undermined by means of this criti-cism. The critic has shown that it makes faulty assumptions about theworld (echoing the example of the Atlantis paper) and that its presentationis dangerously misleading (echoing the example of the map of Chicago). Ifshe chose, the critic could probably make a convincing case for disregard-ing or rejecting the description on these grounds.

This exercise is what it is like to practice criticism in debate. Whenyou focus on the underlying assumptions of your opponents’ argu-ments, you are engaged in criticism of their arguments. The practice ofcritiquing arguments can have tremendous currency in contemporaryparliamentary debating, and has quickly become a crucial type ofargument for opposition teams. We will discuss how critiquing can beused by the opposition side in a debate and then conclude with somegeneral advice about the practice of criticism.

When the proposition team makes their case, they are presenting atext for analysis and interpretation. This text usually consists of a fewbasic components:

• a description of the present state of affairs • an explanation of how that state of affairs causes a problem• a proposal (the plan)• an explanation of how the proposal will remediate the given problem

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 187

• an explanation of how the proposal will remediate other problems

All of these components, as well as their various combinations, arepotential grounds to be mined for criticism. On the opposition, you cancriticize the proposition’s text on any number of grounds. Three ofthese, though they are by no means exclusive or particularly distinctfrom each other, are the grounds of language, values, and thinking.

Language

Initially, you can address the proposition team’s case by criticizing itslanguage. Traditionally, we are given to understand that language isfundamentally neutral, a kind of “container” with no particular cur-rency of its own. Many social theorists who argue that the languagethat we use does, in fact, create lived reality in many tangible wayshave heavily criticized this perspective on language. Here are somequestions to consider:

• Does it matter if you refer to a given nation as part of the “ThirdWorld”? From a certain perspective on global affairs, it certainlymatters. The language of “Third World” assumes a hierarchy of civi-lizations and thereby creates assumptions of inferiority and superior-ity. It also implies that the nation in question and the rest of the“Third World” are fundamentally detachable from the other, numer-ically designated “Worlds” (wherever those are).

• What happens when you call someone an “alleged criminal”? All toooften, the power of the word “criminal” overcomes its modifier“alleged” to type the individual in question as a presumed lawbreak-er, whether or not that person has, in fact, committed a crime.

• What kinds of cultural and historical associations do we have withthe word “black”? There are a myriad of ways that, at least in theWest, “black” is a negative modifier – think about the “black arts,”“black magic,” or what it means to call someone “black-hearted.”

• How do you talk about a civil disturbance? Do you call it a “riot” or an“uprising”? Is there a difference between the two? When we think abouta “riot,” we think about directionless, senseless violence and destruction

188


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 188

189


of property and lives. When we think about an uprising, we think abouta specifically political event that is targeted to achieve social change or atleast to “rise up” against some oppressive set of circumstances.

The worldview that holds that language is itself more or less meaning-less can and should be called into question by interested oppositionteams. All too often, policy decisions are justified with and framed inlanguage that may betray some of the more nefarious or at least puz-zling aspects of that particular policy action.

One good example of this is the language of “development.” Theidea of development implies a kind of ends-orientation, or teleologywhereby one is proceeding from a state of affairs to the next logicalstate of affairs. Think about how we use the language of developmentin biology: Embryos develop organs, wings, legs, and heads accordingto their chromosonal design. In biology, the idea of development car-ries with it a kind of destiny as well as a destination – we proceed aswe must, following a developmental plan, towards becoming fully-formed beings. The transplantation of the language of developmentfrom this biological context to the realm of human and (specifically)international affairs has some troubling implications for policymakersand those who would critically examine public policies.

Many, many public policies are framed using the language of devel-opment. In the USA, a good bit of foreign aid is funneled through theAgency for International Development (US-AID), a division of govern-ment that has the word “development” in its very name. Money and assis-tance is given (by the US-AID and by other agencies and other nations)to countries who are often explicitly referred to as “underdeveloped” oras “Lesser Developed Countries” (LDCs, in the dialect of internationalrelations). These countries are understood to be in need of “develop-ment.” What is, exactly, to count as “development” is an interesting ques-tion. Development is understood to be exemplified by the so-called“developed” countries – those countries, including Europe, Japan, andthe USA, which have reached their fully formed status. The implicationis that some countries need development because they are not like a set ofother (industrialized, consumer-based) countries.

There are many who critique the deployment of this language of

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 189

“development” to describe and attempt amelioration of social problems. Itis said, in the first place, that the language of “underdevelopment” misun-derstands the nature and causes of real harms in specific parts of theworld. What is the cause, for example, of high infant mortality? Is itbecause there are not enough well funded medical facilities in a givennation? Or is it because that nation is not enough like its “developed”cousins? These questions matter quite a bit for the business of interpre-tation and criticism. It could be, for example, that the way the problem isframed obscures other ways of thinking about it while lending an air oflegitimacy to the proposed solution. The language of “development”might be said to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the presentsystem and its concomitant harms on the part of the policy advocates,while at the same time dangerously obscuring other, more trenchant, prob-lems and their causes from further examination. Further, if the harm ismisunderstood, then how can the proposed solution be said to “solve” itin any meaningful way? “Solve what?” you might ask. “If we have proventhat you don’t have any idea what the problem is, then what possible cur-rency could this appeal to solvency have?”

There are also (at best) tautological and (at worst) sinister aspectsto using “development” to help “underdevelopment.” Critics of the lan-guage of “development” have argued that the idea of “development,”inherited and refined as it is from the legacy and practice of colo-nialisms and imperialisms, is itself responsible for many of the mosttrenchant problems in so-called “underdeveloped” countries. From thisperspective, it follows that using “development” aid to alleviate theproblems of “underdevelopment” might be a bit like using sewer waterto clean an open wound. In practice, development assistance often failsto achieve its stated goals. It has often been said to perpetuate depend-ency on donor states, further impeding economic and social self-suffi-ciency. In this respect, development assistance may achieve the oppositeeffect of what its advocates intend – not creating development at all, butrather furthering the supposedly abject state of “underdevelopment.”

It is probably easy to imagine a proposition team using the lan-guage of “development” to justify their proposal. They might proposegiving food and farming aid to some nations defined as “developing.”They might call the aid “development assistance.” They might even talk

190


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 190

191


about the responsibility held by all “developed” nations to help alongtheir less-privileged cousin states. The proposition team would have aharm – famine. They would have a plan – development aid. Theywould try to show that their plan dealt with the problem.

As an opposition team, your work would be cut out for you. Youcould argue that the case’s implicit and explicit relationship with thelanguage of development reveals some fundamental flaws in the propo-sition team’s reasoning and presentation. You could argue that:

a) They fundamentally misunderstand the problem, and thustheir statements of harms should be disregarded.

b) This misidentification of the harm undercuts any appeal to sol-vency that they might make.

c) Their proposal is part of the problem rather than part of thesolution.

d) Their proposal will at best be unable to ameliorate the problem. Atworst, their proposal will simply make things worse rather thanbetter. Thus, there is a net solvency turn for the opposition.

Of course, you would want to flesh these arguments out by givingmuch of the analysis and explanation offered above, but the gist ofyour argument should still be fundamentally clear. Should you chooseto criticize the proposition team’s embrace of a difficult or objection-able type of phrasing, value, or thinking, you will usually try to makeall of these arguments (a-d) as evaluative statements that detail whyyour criticism matters.

When you critique the proposition team’s case, you will have toprove at least two things in order to win the debate on your criticism.You will have to uncover a fundamental assumption of the proposi-tion’s case, and you will have to use that assumption to win the debate.How is this done in practice? If you choose to structure your criticism(using subpoints labeled A, B, and C, for example), there are as manyways to structure your argument as there are potential criticisms to bemade in a debate round. Generally, you will need to prove at least thefollowing components of your argument:

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 191

• The proposition team makes assumption X.• Assumption X is bankrupt (or dangerous, or patently silly, or shame-

fully weak) for the following reasons…• Because we successfully criticize Assumption X, we win the debate

because…

Notice that the evaluative arguments a-d above would fit nicely (withappropriate explanation) under the third component, since all are rea-sons why the criticism functions to undermine and turn back theproposition team’s case.

We are reluctant to advance a specific model for advancing criticalarguments. As you might have gathered by now, they are a bit differ-ent from previous kinds of opposition arguments you have encoun-tered. However, one outline you could use to make the critique of“development” argument is this:

A. The proposition team frames and advances their policy usingthe language of “development.” They propose giving food andfarming aid to some nations defined as “developing.” They callthe aid “development assistance.” They even talk about theresponsibility held by all “developed” nations to help alongtheir less-privileged cousin states.

B. The language and concept of “development” is bankrupt anddangerous.[explain]

C. Because we successfully criticize the language and concepts of“development,” we win the debate because:1) They fundamentally misunderstand the problem, and thus

their statements of harms should be disregarded.[explain]2) This misidentification of the harm undercuts any appeal to

solvency that they might make.[explain]3) Their proposal is part of the problem rather than part of

the solution.[explain]

192


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 192

193


4) Their proposal will at best be unable to ameliorate theproblem. At worst, their proposal will simply make thingsworse rather than better. Thus, there is a net solvency turnfor the opposition.

[explain]

This is just one suggestion for how this argument could be advanced ina formal debate. You could certainly flesh it out or cut it down. Youcould also de-structure the argument, turning it into a more unifiedattack without explicit structure. We show how the argument works asa structured phenomenon only to show the relationships and flowbetween its components.

Values

In addition to criticizing the language of the proposition team’s pro-posal, you can also criticize the assumptions it makes about values. Wehave a tendency to think about values as abstract entities without adirect relationship to policy choices. This tendency is a fairly danger-ous way of thinking about values: They are not just disembodied con-cepts like “dignity,” “freedom,” “justice,” “liberty,” “order,” “security,”“democracy,” and “safety”: They are also the prime movers for our pol-icy and lifestyle decisions. In the chapter on topic interpretation, wediscuss the relationship between values and policy choices. It is, in the-ory, possible to think about a value in the abstract, but you can’t thinkabout a policy without reference to values.

How can you productively criticize the proposition case’s allegiance toparticular value structures? First, you need to pinpoint a fundamentalvalue that seems to inform the proposition team’s case. Then, you need tocriticize that value. Finally, you need to show how your criticism of thatvalue proceeds to undermine or unravel the proposition team’s case. In thisrespect, value criticism is very similar to criticism based on the language ofthe proposition case. Let’s walk through an example to see how this works.

The proposition team opens their speech by detailing a problemthat exists in the present system: There is tremendous violence in theMiddle East, specifically violence between Israelis and Palestinians.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 193

They then present a specific proposal: The USA should deploy peace-keeping troops to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to help quell theviolence. Finally, they argue that the presence of these troops will deterand prevent conflict, thereby keeping the peace.

This presentation is ripe for criticism from the perspective of a phi-losophy of nonviolence. You could argue that the entirety of the propo-sition team’s proposal relies on an implicit belief in the value of vio-lence, and is thus inconsistent on its own merits and according to itsown value system. Consider that the harms detailed by the propositionteam all have to do with a deploration of existing armed conflictbetween Israelis and Palestinians. The understanding here, at leastaccording to the proposition team, is that violence is something to beavoided and prevented, or at least stopped. As an opposition debater,you can concede these fundamental harms and argue that the proposi-tion plan fails to redress them and in fact might make the problemmuch worse. The proposal, after all, deploys the military, assuming thatit is right or acceptable or even feasible to use force to make peace, anassumption that is contested by hundreds of years of thinking aboutnon-violence and the practice of non-violent resistance.

One critical question to ask of the proposition case’s solvency claims isthis: How is it, exactly, that the presence of troops serves to deter conflict?The answer, of course, is that the troops signify and embody a threat offurther force. This threat, it can be argued, is itself a kind of violence: Aregime that keeps the peace by means of threats is itself an intrinsically vio-lent arrangement, and one that forecloses the possibility of other socialarrangements by constantly threatening that more violence will erupt ifadequate deterrence is not maintained. On the opposition, you can arguethat the proposal is inconsistent within its own stated hierarchy of values.The fact of this inconsistency alone, however, is not necessarily a sufficientreason to reject the plan. You must also show how the proposal fails on itsown terms. One way to do this might be to show that the presence oftroops will only escalate the level of conflict rather than ameliorating it –as has been the case in the U.S. intervention in Somalia, Russian inter-vention in Afghanistan, American intervention in Vietnam, Cuban militarydeployments to Angola, and British troop deployments in NorthernIreland. Foreign military intervention has a nasty habit of upping the ante

194


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 194

195


for insurgent forces intent on victory. There is, therefore, a decent possi-bility that the plan will make the problem worse.

You might also voice a principled objection to the use of force, thusadvancing a kind of value abjection to the proposition team’s proposal.Using an adaptation of the model given above, your argument might bestructured something like this:

A. The proposition team’s case relies on the use of violence. Theydeploy troops to the Middle East and argue that those troopswill be good because they will deter conflict. Deterrence, how-ever, is just code for threatening behavior.

B. The idea of using violence to stop violence is bankrupt anddangerous.

[explain]C. Because we successfully criticize the proposition team’s use of

violence, we win the debate because:1) The plan double-turns with the harms. If they are right

about violence being bad, then they lose the debatebecause their proposal is intrinsically and necessarily vio-lent. Their proposal is part of the problem rather than partof the solution.

2) Their proposal will at best be unable to ameliorate theproblem. At worst, their proposal will simply make thingsworse rather than better. Thus, there is a net solvency turnfor the opposition.

[explain]

Note that the parts where we have written “[explain]” are the places inthe argument outline that you will need to fill in to make the argumentcomplete. This kind of value critique tries to show that the propositionteam’s value claims are at odds with their specific proposal.

Another kind of value critique investigates the proposition team’svalues for inconsistencies. Our value concepts are often so broad thatproper investigation can reveal troubling internal inconsistencies. Takethe example of “liberty,” for example. Although just about everyonesupports “freedom” in its abstract sense, they rarely support it without

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 195

qualification. Few human societies, for example, recognize that there isa universal freedom to kill (although some reserve this power for thestate exclusively, as in the example of the death penalty). This valuemeans that “freedom” is generally only accepted with the qualificationthat one has freedom as long as it doesn’t interfere with the freedom ofothers. This qualification may make sense in the abstract but oftenmakes little sense in its social application. In a desert society, your free-dom to consume fresh water necessarily conflicts with the freedom ofothers to consume fresh water. There is thus an inevitable conflict ofrights inherent in the very concept of liberty.

When debating on the opposition, you will frequently encounterproposition cases that claim to protect “liberty” or “freedom” asabstract values. One way you can counter this kind of case is to arguethat although the case is in favor of liberty, there is no liberty they canreally identify as a value, since the very concept of liberty is itself inter-nally inconsistent and thus fundamentally incoherent. Consider alsothat the way we are made out to be volitional, fundamentally free “sub-jects” is also the way that our punishment and incarceration is enabled.It is assumed that if we can take responsibility for committing crimes,then we can be punished for those crimes. The conditions of our sub-jectivity are, arguably, also the conditions that allow our subjugation.

A third kind of value criticism shows the conflict between twoincommensurable values. In our discussion of impact comparison, wetalk briefly about the relationship between the values of liberty andequality. These two values are often in conflict in society. Ask yourself:Are we free to discriminate in a university or business setting? Afterall, these institutions are often privately owned. If we are to supportliberty unconditionally and at all costs, we would have to also supportthe right of business owners and university presidents to discriminateagainst whomever they chose. This practice of discrimination, howev-er, is seldom tolerated in societies that support equality.

In these circumstances where values are in conflict, you need to con-struct and defend a value hierarchy in which you argue that one value isa dependent, diminished, inferior value compared to others. You mightargue that equality is more important than liberty because of the histori-cal exclusion of minority groups and because the failure to provide equal

196


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 196

197


treatment amounts to a denial of citizenship to those victims of discrimi-nation. This denial of citizenship could be said to quash the liberty ofthose victims of discrimination, thereby justifying your use of a hierarchyof values to de-justify the proposition team’s value-based case.

All of these are ways of arguing against the values that inform andstructure the proposition team’s case. It is important to note that whenyou argue against the case and its values, you are not arguing againstthe values held by the proposition team members themselves. After all,it is unlikely in the extreme that you even know what values they intro-duce, let alone which of those values might match up with those pres-ent in the arguments they advance. Our point here is to entice you tothink more about how values are applied in a policy context. Libertyinterests can provide us with any number of freedoms in civil society,but can also allow for child pornography or sex tourism, so they are notnecessarily an unqualified good.

You may have already noticed that the distinctions between lan-guage and value criticism are less than well-defined. The examples wehave used make this pretty clear: the criticism of the discourse of devel-opment is also, intrinsically, a criticism of the values embraced by theproposition team’s case. Likewise, the criticism from the perspective ofnon-violence may employ instances of proposition team language tosubstantiate its contention. You might talk about how the language of“deterrence” is a code for threatening posturing, as in the case ofnuclear deterrence planning (which brought us such appealing con-cepts as “Mutually Assured Destruction” and “winnable nuclear war”).You could also criticize the use of the language of “peace” as assumingthe absence of war, when in fact the deployment of troops and themaintenance of a system of martial law are hallmarks of a state of war.Finally (but by no means exhaustively), you might criticize the lan-guage of “peacekeepers” as a kind of paradoxical characterization thatfunctions as a convenient cover for disguising missions of war. The dis-tinctions between critiques of language and value are less than clear.

Thinking

A third kind of criticism relies on critiquing the kind of thinking that informs

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 197

and structures the proposition team’s presentation of their case for themotion. This type of criticism can and probably should incorporate ele-ments of value and language critiques in focusing on the systems, patterns,and assumptive habits of thought that make the proposition team’s casepossible in the first place. This is arguably the most sophisticated kind ofcriticism one can advance in debate, yet it is also the most loosely defined.

When you critique the thinking of a proposition team’s case, youare essentially saying that the way they are thinking about their problem,solution, or both is essentially bankrupt or dangerous. This conclusionmight be true for any number of reasons. Perhaps their perspective onan issue is outdated, biased, or fundamentally incomplete. Maybe theirmethod for approaching the problem fails to take into account criticalfactors that would, if accounted for, radically change their approachand its results. Perhaps, because of blinders or other learned socio-cul-tural incapacities, they misidentify the causes of the problem theyattempt to solve. We will walk through a few examples of criticisms ofthinking to show how this might work in practice.

You can productively refute the proposition team’s case by criticizingthe way of thinking that makes it possible in the first place. We are taughtin science and social science classes to think of methods of approach asmore or less neutral. We just think about a problem or a fact set, ratherthan apply some kind of specific (let alone potentially nefarious) ideologyto it. Methods of thinking, particularly in science, have been traditionallyunderstood to be fundamentally neutral. But, as we have already estab-lished, the perspective of approach does in fact greatly change what it isthat you see when you examine a given fact set or argument. Many theo-rists have argued that our methods and ways of thinking should be sub-ject to the same kind of criticism as their results.

One public policy issue that pops up often in debates is the problem ofpopulation control. The conventional narrative about the world’s popula-tion problem is fairly predictable and standardized, and goes a little some-thing like this: there are simply too many people on the planet and, there-fore, there are not enough resources (food, fuel, drinkable water, televi-sion, Pokémon cards, etc.) to go around. This problem is getting worse allthe time, as resources (with the help of technology) at best only increasearithmetically, while population increases geometrically (A maitre d’s

198


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 198

199


worst nightmare, perhaps: “Malthus, party of 2?” “Malthus, party of 4?”“Malthus, party of 16?”). Population is the problem, according to this wayof thinking about the issue. If the number of people continues to grow,then there will not be enough resources to go around and people willstarve, or else they will fight each other for control of valuable resources,or else they will starve while they fight each other for control of valuableresources. The proposed solutions therefore attempt to remedy this bydoing something about population, usually by dispersing some combina-tion of family planning techniques. This solution is said to deal with theproblem very neatly: if there are fewer people, then there will be moreeven distribution of resources.

Many people have advanced compelling critiques of this way ofthinking about the problems of population control and resource alloca-tion. It is said that this conventional narrative fundamentally misunder-stands and thereby grossly mischaracterizes the real causes of resourceshortages. Think about existing global resource distribution patterns. Itis the case that a vanishingly small percentage of the world’s populationuses a gigantic percentage of the world’s available resources. The aver-age European, Japanese, Canadian, or U.S. citizen, for example, uses avastly larger amount of resources than the average Guatemalan orSomali citizen. It may be the case that there are not enough resources togo around, but it is important to ask why this is so. Perhaps there are notenough resources to go around because of fundamentally unjust patternsof allocation and not because of population.

If this is the case, we must ask a follow-up question: Why, then, areresource shortages blamed on population excesses rather than on theexcessive and unjust consumption patterns practiced by a certain segmentof global society? Critics suggest several motives for this shift in blame. Itall has to do with assumptions that permeate the way the problem is ana-lyzed. For example, it is not necessarily in the interests of thinkers inindustrialized nations to be critical of their own consumption habits. Also,there is a certain naturalization that occurs whereby we assume that exist-ing patterns of distribution and consumption exist, have existed, and aretherefore more or less inevitable and not necessarily fair game for sub-stantive questioning. This assumption may mean that the proposed solu-tion – providing for family planning and fewer people – is part of the prob-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 199

lem insofar as it not only fails to address the real causes of resources short-ages but also serves as a rationalization for continuing the practices thathave created the problem in the first place.

By this point, you can probably see how this critical dispute mightplay itself out in a debate. The proposition team makes a case forincreasing family planning aid. They say that there is a problem: toomany people, not enough resources. They say there is a solution: fam-ily planning and population control. They say that their solutionaddresses the problem: It reduces the aggregate number of people.

Given the arguments made above and others you generate yourself,you could easily construct a critique of the thinking that informs thiscase. You might say first that the way the proposition team has describedthe problem is fundamentally flawed. You could admit that there are, infact, existing and looming resource shortages, but that the propositionteam misidentifies the reasons for these shortages. This misidentificationmeans that the proposition team’s harms contention is functionally void.You can also argue that as a presentation it is inherently dangerous inthat it leads us to disregard the real problems of discriminatory resourcedistribution and rationalized overconsumption by greedy industrializednations. Your reinterpretation of the text of this contention shows that itis dubious at best, and at worst is nothing more than a bit of transparentpropaganda designed to prop up the ruling class.

You could then proceed to criticize the solution proposed by theproposition team. You might say, as we have said with the “develop-ment” argument, that their misidentification of the harms undercutsany appeal to solvency they might make: “Solve what?” “How doesfamily planning solve discriminatory resource maldistribution?” Youcould also argue that the plan is part of the problem rather than part ofthe solution insofar as it is complicit in maintaining the existing state ofaffairs that causes the harm in the first place. Finally, you could arguethat the thinking that enables the case is so fundamentally flawed thattheir solution could make the state of affairs worse rather than better.Using the model we’ve modified for the other critique arguments, youmight frame your initial opposition argument like so:

A. The proposition team’s case relies on a particular way of think-

200


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 200

201


ing about the population problem that is wrong and dangerous.[explain]B. Because we successfully criticize their thinking about resource

allocation and population control, we win the debate because:1) They fundamentally misunderstand the problem, and thus

their statements of harms should be disregarded.[explain]2) This misidentification of the harm undercuts any appeal to

solvency that they might make.[explain]3) Their proposal is part of the problem rather than part of

the solution.[explain]4) Their proposal will at best be unable to ameliorate the

problem. At worst, their proposal will simply make thingsworse rather than better. Thus, there is a net solvency turnfor the opposition.

[explain]

Sound familiar? It should. The format we’re using is more or less thesame – all you need to do is fill in the details depending on your par-ticular argument and the specifics of their case argumentation.Critiques of thinking, done properly, can nullify every aspect of aproposition team’s case.

Your endeavors at criticism need not be so grandiose or far-reaching,however. You can target criticism to just respond to specific parts of theproposition’s case, e.g., you might just criticize the reasoning or thinkingthat enables their solvency contention or one of their advantages. Theimportant thing to remember about critiquing is that it is not an argumenttype that is set in stone. Critiquing, in essence, remains the same as our ini-tial explanation: uncover a fundamental assumption of your opponents’argument and use that uncovered assumption to win the debate.

Responding to Critiquing

Disadvantages and counterplans are specific argument types with pre-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 201

dictable components. Thus we are able to offer fairly predictable andstable advice to proposition teams regarding a basic method of answer-ing these kinds of arguments. When you are debating against a disad-vantage, for example, you will answer the link, the uniqueness, and theimpact. When you debate against counterplans, you will try to showthat they do not compete or are not net beneficial. Critique argumentsare not as stable and predictable as disadvantages and counterplans –they are not an argument type, per se, but are instances of a practice ofcriticism. There are, thus, no generic answers that we can offer for cri-tique arguments, and we advise you to be very suspicious of peoplewho say that they can. (As the old proverb goes: “Beware of debatecoaches bearing ‘wrong forum’ arguments.”)

The best advice we can give you is to think. Take the opposition’sargument seriously and try hard to answer it on its own terms while stillusing the brunt of your case as leverage against it. Remember: Critiquearguments will usually try to take your case and turn it against you.

When you think about the opposition’s critique argument, try toconsider it in policy terms. Identify the way in which it is consistentwith rather than in opposition to the case. Let’s say that you make acase for limiting the government’s power in a particular area. Theopposition criticizes your approach because they say that you focusinappropriately on the state rather than thinking in opposition to astate-centric view of policy problems and their solutions. In thisinstance, you should argue that the opposition’s criticism is fully con-sistent with your case presentation. You should say that there is no wayto eliminate the state other than to have the state eliminate itself.

Many critique arguments are ahistorical. That is, they presume thatthere’s been no thinking about the issue prior to the debate, when it’s pos-sible that in fact the proposition team has considered the subject of criti-cism and has decided to introduce the plan based on that considerationrather than in spite of it. Let’s look at an example. Imagine that you makea case for the proposition by advocating increased environmental protec-tion. Your advantage claim might be that adoption of the plan would savemany human lives. In response, the negative team might critique yourcase’s alleged complicity with anthropocentrism. Anthropocentrism is a viewof the world that is centered on humans. Many environmental advocates,

202


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 202

203


particularly those affiliated with the so-called “deep ecology” movement,criticize a human-centered approach to environmental issues.Anthropocentrism is said to be detrimental to environmental philosophiesand policies because it promotes the idea that the nonhuman world is onlyvaluable insofar as it is useful to protect human life, a point of view that isarguably at the center of the current environmental crisis. The oppositionteam’s criticism, therefore, is potentially very serious – they say that youare only protecting the environment to save humans and thereby replicat-ing the central error of previous environmental policy.

What should you say? You should say that you have certainly con-sidered the serious issues of anthropocentrism. You could argue thatyou do, in fact, favor policies that protect all matter (not just humans,that is). It is, perhaps, just that the particulars of this case happen toprotect humans. The criticism is therefore ahistorical and has no foun-dations for its criticism of the ideas associated with the case.

The critique arguments outlined in this chapter are fairly sophisti-cated. They are also, alas, not necessarily representative of the majori-ty of critique arguments that appear in debates. As a competitivedebater, you will hear many substandard disadvantages, counterplans,and critique arguments. To this end, we want to offer a few generalthings to consider when debating critiques:

It is vital that you figure out, before you answer the oppositionteam’s critique argument, what the implications of their criticism arefor your case. In other words, if they win their criticism, why does ittherefore follow that they win the debate? After the opposition’s pres-entation of their argument, if you cannot discern why the critique is areason to reject your case, you should ask using a point of information.This way you will be able to debate the implications of the criticism.

Often the most vulnerable part of any opposition critique argu-ment is its implications. Any assumption of any argument can be criti-cized, but only the most fundamental assumptions of a proposition caseare essential to ensuring the case does not collapse. Remember Jenga?If the opposition team only criticizes non-essential or non-fundamentalassumptions of the proposition case, the structure will remain intactand chances are you will still be able to win that your case achieves aclear and decisive advantage over the present system.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 203

Some opposition critique arguments may have only a tangential rela-tionship to your case, and you should point this out. Some teams will makea point of criticizing a broad system of thought – i.e., colonialism, statism,patriarchy, capitalism — of which the proposition case (if they are complicitat all) is only a small part. The opposition team will argue that the caseshould be rejected because of its complicity with this larger system ofthought. In these cases, you should certainly maintain that your case isbarely, if at all, related to the overall philosophy being critiqued, and thateven if the opposition is right that capitalism (for example) is always bad, itdoes not therefore follow that the plan is bad. Call this error in reasoningwhat it is: the fallacy of division. Pressure the opposition team to apply theirargument specifically to the mechanics and contentions of your case.Instruct the judge not to vote on the argument until the opposition meets atleast this minimal burden of specific proof.

Use your case. We talked about the need to use your case as aweapon to fend off or turn disadvantages earlier. You should also useyour case to fend off or otherwise respond to critique arguments. Useyour case to demonstrate the comparative advantages that adoption ofthe plan would accrue. Challenge the opposition team to show that theconsequences of adopting the plan would be worse than the harms thatwould be redressed. Use empirical examples of harms and solvency toshow that the way you’re thinking about the world is, in fact, sound –the opposition team’s loudest protestations about social theory aside.

Above all, don’t panic. Read up on social theory and various per-spectives on national and international issues. Be ready to debate aboutsuch things as political realism, feminist international relations theory,critical race theory, queer theory, anarchism, post-colonialism, social-ism, and the critiques of globalization. Be conscious of the perspectiveyou employ when you design your case and be ready to defend it aswell as its most fundamental assumptions. Just as you design your caseto preemptively answer common disadvantages and counterplans, sotoo should you design your case to preemptively answer common cri-tique arguments. Anticipation is one of the hallmarks of successfuldebaters on both sides of a proposition and of any experience level.

204


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 204

205

CHAPTER 10:

PARLIAMENTARY

POINTS

Introduction

Parliamentary points–points of information, order and privilege-–distinguish parliamentary debating from other forms of inter-scholastic and intercollegiate debating. In parliamentary

debates, a debater may make a point while another person is speaking.The “interruption” of a speech by a parliamentary point, deliveredeither to the speaker holding the floor or the judge, is unusual in con-test debating. In other debating formats, speaking opportunities arelimited, by rule or convention, to presentations that do not interruptdebaters during the presentation of their speeches.

Parliamentary points provide opportunities for interactive debat-ing. Points of information, which are available in most parliamentarydebate formats throughout the world, create a space for the debaters tochallenge arguments or ask questions of a speaker. Points of order orprivilege, which are used in several parliamentary formats, particular-ly in North America, allow debaters, in collaboration with a ruling

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 205

from the judge of a debate or the designated speaker of the house, toestablish the rules for the introduction or removal of arguments fromthe debate.

Points of personal privilege and points of order are infrequentlyintroduced in a debate, even in the parliamentary formats authorizingtheir use. Points of information are a regular part of most parliamen-tary debates and are an important strategic tool for competitors.

Points of Information

A point of information (a. k. a., “POI,” pronounced as P-O-I) is a briefstatement or a question to an argument claim, example or other pointthat is being made by a speaker. The point must be concisely made–adebater is typically given 15 seconds to successfully conclude a point.A point of information, unlike the point of order or personal privilege,is directed to the person speaking rather than to the judge or designat-ed Speaker of the House.

In the American parliamentary debate format, points of informa-tion are permitted in the first four speeches–the constructive speechesalso popularly known as the Prime Minister Constructive, LeadOpposition Constructive, Member of Government Constructive andMember of Opposition Constructive. Points of information are notpermitted in either rebuttal speech. In addition, parliamentary pointsare not permitted during “protected time,” the first minute or the lastminute of a speech that gives the speaker an opportunity to introduceand conclude a speech without distraction or interruption.

The timekeeper, often the same person serving as the judge of thedebate, a designated Speaker of the House or a person selected as time-keeper, should signal that the opening minute of a constructive speech hasbeen completed, typically using a knock on the table, clap of the hands orother noisemaking but not attention-getting device at the end of the firstminute and at the beginning of the last minute of each constructive speech.Points of information are permitted only between these two signals. In theBritish parliamentary debate format, points of information are permittedduring any of the speeches, but there is a minute of “protected time” at thebeginning and conclusion of each speech as in the American format.

206


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 206

207

PARLIAMENTARY POINTS

Points of information are requests for the speaker holding the floorto yield time for a statement or question from the opposing side. Forthis reason, the time for a point of information counts against the allot-ted time for the speaker holding the floor. For example, if a speaker isdelivering a seven-minute speech and a person on the opposing siderequests a point of information at the first opportunity (one minuteafter the beginning of the speech or, in other terms, with six minutes ofthe speech remaining) and the point is accepted, the time will continueto run. If the point is made in 15 seconds and the speaker replies to thepoint for 15 seconds for a total of 30 seconds committed to the point ofinformation (“but I participate in debate because I thought there wouldbe no math”), the speaker holding the floor will have five minutes andthirty seconds remaining in her speech.

There are a number of local conventions and subtle differencesregarding the presentation of a point of information. To make a pointof information, in a conventional or generally acceptable form, you riseand face the person speaking, indicating an intention to speak by sig-naling with a gesture, typically an extended hand, or by offering a ver-bal sign, (saying, for example, “Point of information,” “Information,”or “On that point.”) The person speaking holds the floor during thetime of her or his speech. The speaker may take the point of informa-tion or refuse the request for a point. The speaker might quicklyacknowledge and agree to take a point (for example, “I’ll take thepoint,” or more simply, “Yes.”).

If the speaker accepts your point of information, you make yourpoint and sit down. Additional or “follow-on” statements or ques-tions by the debater making a point are out of order. After all, thespeaker only recognizes you for a single and brief point of informa-tion, not for a sustained commentary, detailed interrogation, ormulti-part question. On the occasions in which a speaker accepts aninformational point, the speaker should carefully listen to the pointand make a decision to answer it or ignore it (more on strategicreplies to points of information below).

A speaker should be patient during the presentation of a point ofinformation. Although points of information ought to be brief, a 15-second point of information may seem like a significant disruption to a

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 207

speaker who has much to say and little officially permitted speakingtime for it. In other words, the recipient of a point of information isoften, unsurprisingly, impatient with an opponent’s presentation of apoint. To the interrupted speaker, it always seems to be the case thatthe amount of time taken to make a point greatly exceeds the 15 sec-onds allowed by rule or convention for an informational point.

This “crisis of temporality” reigns in parliamentary debatingcontests, despite the fact that it is surely rare for a point of informa-tion to last for a full 15 seconds, let alone exceed that time.Interruptions of a debater’s point by the person to whom the point isaddressed are as unwelcome as the prolonged point. (A recommen-dation: Parliamentary debaters might experiment to better under-stand the officially or socially approved amount of time for a personon an opposing team to make a point of information. For example,you might pinch yourself, or otherwise perform a painful but non-invasive or permanently scarring quasi-medical procedure, for atimed 15-second period. Or, as a G. Gordon Liddy-like thoughtexperiment, you might imagine holding your hand over a candleflame for the same fifteen-second period. It would be difficult tobelieve that any debater engaged in such experiments would believethat fifteen seconds constituted a brief or insignificant time.)

The speaker might also refuse to take a point of information. A speak-er might dismiss points of information with a brief phrase (e.g., “Not at thistime” or “No, thank you.”) In some locales or parliamentary debating for-mats, a more curt or brusque dismissal is possible. A speaker might rejecta point of information with a quickly and strongly expressed “No” or maynot even respond orally, but alternatively gesture with a downward waveof her or his hand to indicate that a debater rising for a point of informa-tion should sit down. If the person speaking declines to accept the point ofinformation, you must sit down immediately.

Points of information are directed to the opposing team in a debate.“Friendly” questions, supportive comments, and other asides or prospec-tive points to one’s partner or, in the British format, to another team argu-ing the same side of a motion, are not permitted. Each speaker in thedebate should both make and accept points of information. If you fail tomake any points, it will seem that you are incapable of challenging the

208


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 208

209


legitimacy of the ideas of your opponent. Additionally, in formats with sixor eight competitors, you might fail to engage the majority of the partici-pants or the more salient ideas in the discussion. In other words, youmight not appear to be actively engaged in the debate.

If you decline to accept any points of information it may appear tothe judge and the audience that you fear the opponents or their argu-ments. On the other hand, if you accept too many points of informa-tion, you might appear to lose control of your speech. The distractionand continuous interruption might undermine the many good argu-ments you might want and need to present to sustain your team’s posi-tion in a debate. As the English-Speaking Union’s guidebook explains:“Offering points of information, even if they are not accepted, showsthat you are active and interested in the debate. Accepting them whenoffered shows that you are confident of your arguments and preparedto defend them. A team that does neither of these is not debating.”

Strategic Uses of Points of Information

Points of information are a powerful tool for the effective debater.They direct the judge’s attention to the more germane issues of thedebate. They provide opportunities for dynamic and direct clash withopponents. Informational points are opportunities for displays of wit,humor, and style.

Making Strategic Points of Information

Statements or Questions? Parliamentary points may bestatements or questions. In much of the world, debaters routinely usestatements or questions as points of information, choosing either adeclarative or interrogatory form, as the circumstance requires. In theUSA, the National Parliamentary Debate Association has codified theuse of informational points as statements or questions:

A debater may request a point of information–either verbally of byrising–at any time after the first minute and before the last minute of

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 209

any constructive speeches. The debater holding the floor has the dis-cretion to accept or refuse a point of information. If accepted, thedebater requesting the point of information has a maximum of 15 sec-onds to make a statement or ask a question. The speaking time of thedebater with the floor continues during the point of information.

A statement is a preferred form of parliamentary point, if you can useeither a statement or a question to make a point. A declarative claimreveals command of the facts and argument debate. A question morelikely indicates your lack of knowledge about one or more issues andappears as a request of the speaker holding the floor for information. Aquestion, therefore, places the person making a point in an inferior andunfavorable position relative to the person holding the floor, and exertsa powerful persuasive influence on judges and audiences alike aboutwhich side is winning.

Too many debaters use a somewhat tortured method of convertingstatements to questions for the purpose of making a point of informa-tion. For example, a debater might make the following claim:

Speaker: “The application of the death penalty is an effective deter-rent to capital crimes. Research for decades has consistently shownthat states with capital punishment have lower murder rates.”

You might choose to reply with a statement:

Respondent: “On that point. [The point of information is acceptedby the speaker holding the floor] That same research indicates thatstates that actually use the death penalty have growing rates ofcapital crimes and that states with an unused death penalty havedecreasing murder rates.”

This point of information challenges the factual claims of the speaker,entirely undermining the legitimacy of the argument claim that thedeath penalty deters crime. In fact, it is a proof of the opposite position,namely, that the application of the death penalty might actuallyincrease the safety risk to the public.

210


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 210

211


You could also “convert” the authority of this declarative point ofinformation and press forward with the following interrogatory:

Respondent: “On that point. [The point of information is accept-ed by the speaker holding the floor] Isn’t it true that states thatactually use the death penalty have growing rates of capitalcrimes and that states with an unused death penalty havedecreasing murder rates?”

The latter question simply does not confront the speaker’s facts in thesame way as the former point of information. The question here seemsto indicate that the respondent is unsure of the facts and requires infor-mation from an opponent. The speaker is called to reiterate or other-wise confirm a portion of her speech. The answer to this question istediously obvious to anyone who has observed even a few parliamen-tary debates. The predictable answer to the respondent’s question:

Speaker: “Of course that isn’t true. As I noted, the opposite is the case.”

The transformation of powerful statement to weak question has a num-ber of negative consequences for the debater making the point. In thiscircumstance, it fails to undermine the legitimacy of the speaker’s argu-ment claim about the deterrent effect of the death penalty. In fact, itreinforces the point made by the speaker, that is, that the death penal-ty deters murder, a fact supported by years of social science research.The speaker is able to support her own claim in a way that no judgewould ever miss. It is initially noted in her speech and subsequentlysupported during a point of information.

In addition, the question increases the difficulty for the opposingside to effectively refute the argument claim at a later point in thedebate. The respondent has seemingly undermined her own credibili-ty–the question reveals a lack of knowledge about the deterrence issue.It appears to indicate that the respondent is not sure whether the deathpenalty is an effective deterrent to capital crimes. The question appearsto indicate that the respondent might be searching for a weakness inthe speaker’s case but has been unable to find one.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 211

It would be difficult to establish an equally credible argumentregarding your knowledge of the deterrent effect of capital punishmentafter asking a question indicating you might not be sure of the requi-site facts. In a debate, the credibility of the speaker is essential to anunderstanding of the factual material. In this sample, an opposingteam’s subsequent argument about the deterrent effect of the deathpenalty would have little leverage against not one, but two, authorita-tive claims by the speaker. And one of those authoritative claims wouldhave been heard during an interactive portion of the debate– one of theinfrequent opportunities for the debaters to “square off” and confronteach other about the debate’s facts. In this circumstance, a judge wouldbe hard-pressed to agree with the respondent.

Applications for Points of Information

There are five primary purposes for points of information. Points maybe used to understand the issues presented by an opposing side, clari-fy the core issues of the debate, evaluate factual material, advance yourown arguments and undermine your opponent’s arguments.

Seeking Understanding. A point of information can be usedfor understanding. In a debate, it is necessary to appreciate the argu-ments from the opposing side. It is not possible to make tactical deci-sions regarding argument selection, speech organization, and refuta-tion without first identifying the key issues of the debate, including thearguments initiated by opponents. It is not possible to answer argu-ments with which you are unfamiliar or uncertain. Points of informa-tion are available to establish a mutually shared knowledge base forinformed debating.

Informational points may be used to examine a motion’s interpre-tation, the scope of a proposition plan or opposition counterplan orcounterposition, the nature of argument and debate theory, agencyoperations, the technical details of products, services and policies, andmore. Examples for each of these follow:

• “The notion for the debate is ‘Bury it.’ Could you explain how the

212


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 212

213


recovery of DNA from exhumed corpses supports the motion?”• “Your plan establishes that the United Nations ought to use peace-

keeping forces to more effectively implement the requirements of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights. Would you employ militaryforces for every violation of human rights, regardless of location,degree of the problem or the prior intervention of other peacekeep-ing forces?”

• “Please describe, in a known human language, what it is you mean bythe phrase ‘dispositional intrinsicness counter-permutation?’”

• “The World Health Organization is responsible for internationalsmallpox eradication. What is the WHO’s position on eradication ofthe smallpox virus at remaining sites and how is it carrying out thatpolicy?”

• “I understand your claim that a ‘suture,’ as explained from the syn-chronic gaps in a signifying chain, might lead to narrative dismem-berment. What I don’t understand is your subsequent claim that thesuture effect on a hypertextual subject in the international binding ofthe docuverse might lead to diachronic discourse closure or link func-tion fragmentations. Please explain the latter.”

Points of information may additionally clarify or simplify the issues of adebate. Debates are not occasions for disagreeable people to exchangeunpleasantries for an hour, in order to temporarily protect family, friends,colleagues and neighbors from their acute social dysfunction, personalinsecurities and pathologies. Debates involve elements of disagreementbut they surely include areas of agreement as well.

Establishing Agreement. The clever debater (you) will wantto successfully identify issues of agreement in a debate. This tactic canreveal the inadequacies in an opponent’s argument (the argument maybe based on faux difference, a near-classic argument fallacy). It mightalso refocus the salient issues of difference in the respective argumentsof the debating teams, enabling the judge to better understand thearguments that support the (potentially) winning side. It is in the inter-est of each participant to mark points of agreement.

In a debate on the motion, “This House prefers liberty to equality,”

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 213

a generalist claim by the opening proposition speaker might profound-ly influence the outcome of the debate if not carefully checked by anopposing debater with a point of information regarding agreement.“Liberty” is hardly a simple concept with a singular understanding.There are many conceptions of liberty, some at odds with each other.

The opening proposition speaker might not clearly delineate thevarious understandings of “liberty” (as if such a condition could be metin a seven-minute speech without divine intervention). Although thismight be a fine strategy for the proposition team (providing consider-able argument room to maneuver in their speeches, manipulating thetext of the debate for their advantage, as they cleverly adapt their argu-ments in the later speeches to account for the parries and thrusts ofeven a talented opponent), it is clearly against the interests of the oppo-sition team to play the same game.

The opposition team must do something to focus the discussion ona limited set of ideas that might be successfully refuted in the allottedtime. Agreement – established with a point of information – may be thesolution. If the opening speaker seems to support a unifying exampleof liberty interests throughout her performance (say, for example, theindependence of the individual citizen from state interference), it maybe to your advantage, as a representative of the opposing team in thedebate, to seek agreement with that expressed perspective of libertyand “seal the deal” with a convincingly agreeable point of information.

• “Point of information. [The point of information is accepted by thespeaker holding the floor] “Can we agree that liberty, in this debate,should be exclusively understood as the independence of the individ-ual from control, direction, or manipulation by the state?”

Agreement by the parties in the debate is more likely to “fix” the argu-ment positions of the teams. In other words, it is unlikely that a teamwill succeed with a “bait-and-switch” tactic, i.e., offer an abstract ini-tial position, receive the opposing side’s argumentation on the point,then shift the discussion to a new and strategically modified argument.This tactic is commonly known as a “shift” in a debate and, despite theconsternation shifting argumentation causes its victims, it remains a

214


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 214

215


common tactic. Agreement establishes a mutually agreed basis fordebating. The clarification with a point of information makes thisagreement apparent to your debate judge.

Such an agreement, confirmed by a point of information, compelsattention to a particular set of issues in the debate, namely those“other” arguments that remain in dispute (those ideas about whichthere remains disagreement). Since neither side can make effectiveclaims influencing the outcome of the debate with argument points thatmay also be claimed by an opposing team, debaters must inevitablyaddress the germane issues about which they disagree. Any argumentsupported by more than one team fails to create a substantive clashbetween the sides of a motion that might give one of the teams a supe-rior position in the debate (see section on uniqueness in disadvan-tages). Points of information that clarify issues of agreement thereforeremove issues from a judge’s consideration so that the debaters mightconcentrate on more important and decisive matters.

Evaluating Facts. Interesting claims about history, government,economics, politics and culture are often introduced in parliamentarydebates:

• “There are fifty nations in NATO.”• “It is not possible to have unemployment and inflation at the same

time.”• “The most underdeveloped European country is Hawaii.”• “The United Nations was established in 1850, at the conclusion of the

First World War.”

The listed claims are, quite obviously, inaccurate. (If they are not inac-curate to you, perhaps you were the person uttering one of these linesin a recent debate. You should now know that you were, indeed, fac-tually incorrect.)

There are other, less obvious, factual inaccuracies in many debates.Many debaters claim to represent the factual world (at least the non-quantum one) with a knowledge base that includes a healthy dose ofmisinformation, half-truths, gossip, rumors, innuendo, hearsay, official

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 215

government or corporate propaganda, quasi-royal decrees, slander,puffery, eyewitness accounts, hyperbolic realities, voodoo simulacra,carnie wisdom (not to be confused with Carnie Wilson), folk psychol-ogy, reporting from the Fox News Corporation, psychic hotline nota-tions, tarot pronouncements or a personal belief system. On someoccasions, there are even false claims in debate topics. (Adonis is thegod of vegetation, not love!)

Points of information are a superb opportunity to examine the“information” of a debate. You might question the veracity of oppo-nent’s fact-sets, reconsider the historical record or analyze the rele-vance or import of noted examples and exceptions.

Advancing Your Own Argument. A successful debater mightbe able to advance her own argument during points of informationwith a little bit of help from her friends. Advancement is best accom-plished with a cooperative point, i.e., one that avoids the confronta-tional, strident, skeptical or accusatory tone often accompanyingpoints of information in the over-heated, electrically charged adversar-ial crock-pot that is modern parliamentary debate.

As most interrogators are aware, an unfriendly question is easilyanticipated and often resisted by witnesses. Many points of informa-tion are decidedly unfriendly:

• “Point of information. [The point of information is accepted by thespeaker holding the floor] You, madam, are deceiving the good ladiesand gentlemen assembled, not to mention the judging panel. As sureas I have an active brain wave, there are fifty nations in NATO.”

• “On that point. [The point of information is accepted by the speakerholding the floor] I knew Jack Kennedy. I worked with JackKennedy. And you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy.”

• “On your reinterpretation of Mein Kampf. [The point of informationis accepted by the speaker holding the floor] Will you continue topersist in this national socialist vision, or are there other ideas thatyou will advance in the debate?”

Many other debaters take a contrary and directly opposite stance to

216


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 216

217


the argument points presented by a speaker, with little meaningful con-sequence for the individual advancing the point of information. Thisconfrontational stance essentially leaves the person making the point inthe same position as before their 15-second utterance. The point doesnot matter at all, at least as substantive commentary:

Respondent: “Point of information. [The point of information isaccepted by the speaker holding the floor] You claimed thatincreased prosecution of drug offenses will reduce drug use. Thatis not the case, nor has it ever been true.”Speaker: “A new regime of criminal penalties will indeed work.And here are the reasons as to why…”

A better strategy might be a “leading” statement or question, designedto encourage your opponent to speak at length on an issue, rather thanhave your adversary simply resist the point. (You can catch more witha pinch of sugar than a plague of flies, or something like that. It is inthe Old Testament somewhere, or so it is rumored, gossiped, or told bycarnies and psychics.)

To advance a point of information, which might advance yourargument in the debate, you should appropriately anticipate the issuesthat will be presented. Argument anticipation is a key to successfuldebating. Anticipation is important in all competitive contests – athlet-ics, board games such as chess and backgammon, card games, andother academic competitions (Model United Nations, academicdecathlon, public speaking contests, etc.).

Your success in competitive contests presumes that you will identifythe potential moves that an opponent might make and effect counters tothose moves. In an athletic contest, for example, one might anticipate aphysical move by an opponent and use a feint or misdirection to avoid her.In a board game, such as chess, victory is typically predicated on a play-er’s ability to anticipate the direction of play eight, nine, ten or more movesin advance. In debates, consistent success requires anticipation of theissues that will be argued in the contest. Effective debaters should “know,”with some degree of confidence, many of the issues that will be introducedin a debate before the opening speech.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 217

How can a debater anticipate opponents’ issues and, subsequently,their own replies to those arguments? It is a relatively simple matter.You should initially consider the arguments that you will introduce inthe debate. Then imagine the manner in which your opponent willrespond to each of your arguments. Ask yourself the following ques-tion: “What will my opponent say when I make this argument in thedebate?” The answers to this question will successfully reveal many ofyour opponents’ arguments.

Once you have identified the likely rejoinders to your arguments inthe debate, it is then necessary to consider the moves you will make toanswer those claims. At this point, ask yourself the following question:“What will I say when they present their answers to my first argu-ments?” This, of course, will provide the appropriate arguments toaddress the replies to your initial argument set. It is then possible torepeat these two relatively modest, yet vitally important questions toaccount for all the speeches of a debate.

In this way, a debate can be “scripted” before it starts. Scriptingdoes not mean the elimination, or even the serious reduction, of extem-poraneous debating. After all, it is extraordinarily rare to anticipate allof your opponents’ arguments. Opponents, although too often despisedor feared, are hardly that transparent. A number of unanticipatedissues will surely enter the overwhelming majority of your debates. Atthe same time, “scripting” or argument anticipation abets the debaterwho is able to address the concerns of the opponent (and the judge)before the debate starts.

Advancing an argument through a point of information relies onargument anticipation. In a debate, you will successfully anticipatesome of your opponents’ arguments and prepare your answers to them.You would like to make sure that you are able to introduce your argu-ments with necessary legitimacy and credibility.

You should craft a point of information, which will “enable” youropponent. In other words, your point will appear to be friendly, invitingyour opponent to respond. The point will get your opponent to speak. Infact, your opponent will not just speak to the point – your opponent will“embrace” the properly worded friendly point. Like many relationships,however, there is something “funny” about the friend.

218


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 218

219


The point of information, as an example of advancing your ownargument, bonds the point to the speaker in the speaker’s own words.It is a dysfunctional connection, to be sure, but one created and nur-tured by your opponent. For the speaker receiving the point, there isno escape from her newly announced co-dependent relationship and,like many relationships with a hint of dysfunction, it will not take long(just until your next speech) to reveal to those assembled that there isa serious and lurking problem.

In the following example, we will presume that the propositionteam has presented a case advocating that the federal government ofthe USA should significantly expand its school breakfast and lunchprogram, providing nutrition supplements to needy children:

Respondent: “Point of information. [The point of information isaccepted by the speaker holding the floor] But the federal schoolbreakfast and lunch program doesn’t provide a comprehensivediet. It doesn’t even include dairy, does it?”Speaker: “Yes, it does include dairy. It provides all the necessarycomponents of a daily nutritional supplement.”

In this example, you, as respondent to a speaker holding the floor, haveintroduced a point of information that has encouraged the speaker tosay precisely what is needed to advance your arguments indicatingthat:

1. Dairy products exacerbate the incidence of childhood asthma;2. The inclusion of dairy products reduces immunity to bacterial

infections. As dairy farmers add antibiotics to livestock feed toprotect their herds, the medication is passed, through the con-sumption of dairy products, to consumers and the additionboth generates antibiotic-resistant strains of germs andincreases the tolerance of the immune system to particulardrugs, reducing antibiotic’s effectiveness; and

3. Many children, particularly those of African or Asiandescent, are lactose intolerant. A “dairied” diet is insufficient-ly culturally sensitive, unhealthy and inedible for many of the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 219

children for whom the federal school breakfast and lunchprogram is designed.

These issues, anticipated before the debate, are secured with a point ofinformation. The proposition speaker, in reply to the point of informa-tion, has established a clear relationship between the plan of action inthe opening speech that endorses a significant increase in the federalschool breakfast and lunch program, and a diet that includes dairyproduct. This relationship, or “link,” is more than enough to serve as afoundation for the opposition arguments listed here, as well as manymore. The opposition is now in a superior position to advance its owninterests in the debate because a point of information encouraged theopposing side to speak on an issue, albeit in a predictable way.

Undermining Your Opponent’s Argument. We will pref-ace this section on applications of points of information in order to notethat this last task, undermining your opponent’s arguments, is the mostchallenging of all. Points of information are different from the SpanishInquisition or Salem Witch Trials. For example: no dunking. Theopposing side must have the approval of the speaker holding the floorto make a point. Only one point may be made – there are no opportu-nities for a series of questions or an open forum. The speaker maychoose to answer the point or might dismiss the issue from the otherside entirely. In addition, speakers are notoriously skeptical of debatersmaking points of information and are ready to resist any unexpected(even well-anticipated) point. In other words, the person making apoint of information is not in a strategic position to elicit a confession,admission or disclosure from the speaker. It is highly unlikely that aperson making a point will be able to rhetorically disrobe a speaker.

There are, however, some opportunities to effectively counter theclaims of the speaker. These include challenges to the logical construc-tion of arguments, the presentation of counterexamples or the criticalexamination of fact sets.

A challenge to the logical construction of an argument (an inves-tigation of causality or the revelation of an argument fallacy, forexample) might undermine the extant argument point by the speak-

220


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 220

221


er. In a debate on the need for development assistance in the form ofcapital development projects in the Sudan to spur economic growthand relieve human misery, the opposing side might offer the follow-ing point:

Respondent: “On the Sudan. [The point of information is acceptedby the speaker holding the floor] The proximate cause of humanmisery in the Sudan is a multi-year drought and a civil warbetween Christian and Muslim factions. Development assistance,particularly capital intensive projects, will do nothing to forestallhunger and disease from lack of potable water. These new projectswill only increase the violence of the civil war, as participantsstruggle for the few incoming dollars.”

Using points of information to undermine an opponent’s argument is aworthy tactic, but a difficult one to accomplish in serious debates.

Avoiding the “Rule of Three”

This is a misnomer. There is no “Rule of Three.” Some debate coachesteach as if such a rule exists. It does not. Let us clarify: In parliamen-tary debate, there is no “Rule of Three.” No such rule. Number of“Rules of Three” in parliamentary debating – zero. For those readersstill uncertain about this issue, we will conclude with the following,“THERE IS NO RULE OF THREE.”

Why, then, is it important to discuss a non-existent rule? Perhapsin a wistful manner that echoes belief in Oz or Atlantis, some debatecoaches do believe the rule exists. So do a number of judges.Unfortunately, some debaters perpetuate the myth of its existence. Itis, therefore, important to understand what it is and how one mightavoid it.

Some debaters, coaches, and judges, primarily but not exclusivelyin the USA, believe that a speaker holding the floor is obliged to acceptthree, but no more than three, points of information. Some of themextend the faux rule in this way: They believe that a team may attemptonly three points of information during speeches. Neither is accurate.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 221

Debate teams may attempt any number of points of informationduring the non-protected time of opponents’ speeches (after the firstminute of the speech and before the last minute of the speech). You arenot limited in any way in the number of attempts. No parliamentarydebate community places a restriction on informational attemptsbecause the speaker holds the floor and must approve any points ofinformation. The speaker may accept or refuse points in a strategicmanner during her presentation. The speaker controls the introductionof points of information from opponents and does not need the institu-tional protection of a formal rule.

In practice, debaters in the USA train their judges and coaches inthe “Rule of Three.” Debaters are likely to reply to points of informa-tion this way:

• “I will take your first question.”• “I will take your second question.”• “I will take your third and final question.”

This overly rehearsed and mechanically delivered set of responsesoffers poor instruction to inexperienced judges. To begin, the listedreplies presume that points of information are interrogatories. Wrong.As discussed above, points of information may be either statements orquestions (and clever debaters would, for noted reasons, prefer thepoint of information as a statement.)

This approach also makes the error that the speaker holding thefloor controls the number of attempts that might be made by the oppos-ing side. Although the speaker is able to accept or refuse points, he orshe is not authorized to dictate the number of attempts made by anoth-er team. The opposing side may, if desired, continue to make attempts.The fact that a speaker holding the floor might decide to preemptivelyrefuse later points during her speech does not mean that there will beno meaningful need for informational points. The speaker might pres-ent confusing arguments, inaccurate facts or technical details of aproduct or public policy. Any of these circumstances or many addi-tional issues of controversy and concern could prompt an attempt byan opposing team.

222


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 222

223


Too often, points of information are poorly presented. The state-ments or questions meekly quibble with the argument claims and evi-dence of a speaker. In these circumstances, it is in the interest of thespeaker to accept more than three points because it reveals her superi-or argument ability or demonstrates her model debating skills. It doesnot make sense to arbitrarily limit the number of points of informationto “three,” when taking more points will help improve the odds of win-ning or gaining favor with the judge for higher individual marks.

In parliamentary debating, particularly regarding points of infor-mation, “three” is definitely not a magic number. Debaters should befree to raise points and accept or refuse them at will. Practice anddebate convention might suggest that taking three points during aspeech is good form but this is in no way an obligation of any debateinstitution or format.

Manner during Points of Information

Attitude. Debaters should present information in a clear, relativelydispassionate manner during points of information. This recommenda-tion applies equally to the person making the point and the speaker hold-ing the floor. Debates are, by nature, adversarial. Competition, particu-larly at renowned invitational or intervarsity tournaments, includingnational or world championships, potentially increases participants’ anx-iety and tension between teams. Points of information, because they con-stitute an interactive portion of the debate, are an occasion for desperate,hostile, or confrontational stances that might spill over into open conflict.Debaters must keep in mind that points of information are not an oppor-tunity to vent frustration on the opposing side. Rather, they are an occa-sion for further communication with the judge(s).

A debate judge is likely to hold both parties (the person making thepoint of information and the speaker holding the floor) responsible forthe breakdown of effective communications during points of informa-tion. It is unwise to antagonize the judge with unreasonable, petty,immature, mean, or small-minded behavior. An appropriate under-standing of the role of communication in debate ought to remedyjudges’ behavior.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 223

As in any setting, communication in debates is effective when themessage is delivered to the appropriate decision-maker. In the over-whelming majority of debates, the decision-maker is a single judge or apanel of several judges. There are exceptions, including decisions by avote of the full audience assembled in a debating chamber, combinationof experienced or officially–selected judges or an internet or other broad-cast audience. In other circumstances, the audience may be the actualdecision-maker, even if there is a panel of judges with the responsibilityto adjudicate the debate. Debaters should make every effort to provideinformation to the decision-makers and should largely ignore the effec-tiveness of their communication with their opposing side. This is not thesame as the old adage “Never argue with an idiot.” Your opponentsmight be quite respectful, honorable and intelligent. It is simply the casethat the opposing side is not in a position to issue the final verdict on themerits of your arguments in the debate and you would not want them todo so even if they could. It will be a conflict of interest.

It will undoubtedly be the case that there is little satisfaction inspeaking with an opposing side in a debate. For one thing, they opposeyou. Your appeals to their rationality, humanity or general decency arelikely to fall on deaf ears. They are extraordinarily unlikely to concedethe debate to you, even in dire circumstances for them. It is inevitablythe case that any communicative appeal to the opposing side will beless than gratifying.

Of course, direct communication with the opposing side mayunleash the dogs of war. Little good can come of interpersonal conflictwith other debaters. You should be careful to avoid any openings forthis unpleasantness.

Instead you should focus attention on the person or persons actu-ally making a decision on the outcome of the debate – the debate judge.The presentation of a point of information, although directed to aspeaker holding the floor, is an opportunity for supplemental informa-tion to the judge. The superior debater should employ points of infor-mation that will use (in this case, exploit, besmirch, manipulate ormake dirty) the other side, treating them as foil, patsy, dupe, or pawnas you make effective efforts to communicate with the judge (examplesfollow later in the chapter). The suggested approach – information to

224


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 224

225


the judge rather than to the speaker holding the floor – is more likelyto reduce hostile or impotent communication during attempted points.

Gesticulation. Local conventions will determine the forms for thepresentation of a point of information. These forms include, but are notlimited to, the following. A person attempting a point of order will:

• rise.• rise and say “Point of information.”• rise and extend an open hand.• rise and extend an open hand and say “Point of information.”• rise and extend one open hand, while placing the other hand on her

head.• rise and extend one open hand, while placing the other hand on her

head and say “Point of information.”• rise and extend one open hand, while placing the other hand on her

head and say “Point of information.” At the same time, the debatermust position either foot on the shoulder of her partner, strike amatch and touch her belt buckle not once, not twice, but thrice.Rumor has it that a pony is involved somehow.

Unnecessary, inappropriate or anachronistic gestures can confound anaudience. Several of these forms are at odds with local cultural practiceand history. Several others might fit a particular space, time or zoo facil-ity but are poor intercultural models. (The latter examples constituteobscene or offensive gestures in some regions the world. Other gestures,for example, the less and less popular maneuver involving placing a handon the hand to hold in place an invisible powdered wig, seem out-of dateand out-of-place. Okay, okay, we get it. You are a little teapot.)

The selection of the form of presentation of a point of informationis an appropriate escalatory tactic for those occasions when you wantor need to make a point and the speaker holding the floor continues torefuse your attempts. The initial attempt of an informational pointought to be minimalist – the person making the point should rise andmake no other verbal or physical moves. If the point is refused, thesecond attempt should be more demonstrative, e.g., the person making

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 225

the point should rise, saying “Point of information” in a clear, loud butmeasured tone. If the second attempt is also refused, the third attemptmight add an extended open hand, a gesture clearly asking, perhapsimploring, the speaker to recognize you.

These verbal and physical escalations make it apparent to the judgethat the speaker is ignoring your attempts at making a point. The judgewill not think less of your performance if she identifies that the failureto make a point is at the speaker’s exercised discretion and not becauseyour attempts failed. The judge may also hold it against the speaker forher refusal to engage you.

If your first attempt in the debate throws in every statement andgesture in the known POI world – hands outstretched and on headwith an additional verbal cue that you are delivering a “point of infor-mation,” (the latter comment evidently announced to provide a con-trast with the other moments during opponents’ speeches when yourise to strike an awkward or eccentric pose) you have eliminated yourability to engage in escalatory tactics (as fatal in parliamentary debat-ing as it is in high-stakes international negotiations or nuclear deter-rence posturing). Save the ballet for those times during opposing sidespeeches when a point of information must be made.

Humor and Heckling. Yes, by all means, do it. But be careful.When required, negotiate the issue with judges before competition ora round of debate begins. All judges admire wit, cleverness and humor.Many prefer heckling. Some, however, believe heckling is boorish,crude and disruptive. Please discuss the issue of heckling during pointsof information with judges, area coaches, and fellow debaters if you areunfamiliar with the local debate conventions or the judges.

There are different heckles that you might successfully employ dur-ing points of information. Let’s face it. Speakers holding the floor are, atbest, reluctant witnesses. They have decidedly pained or unfavorablereactions to most points of information. They do not want disruptionsduring their all-too-important arguments and they certainly do not wantsuccessful challenges to their analytical reasoning or factual claims.

There is an even more serious problem for the successful competi-tor. Parliamentary debate is a team event. There are as few as two and

226


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 226

227


as many as four teams in the overwhelming majority of the world’s par-liamentary debating contests. If your opponents detect that you are asuperior debater to your partner or the members of another opposingteam, and that you display a flair for the incisive and witty remark, itis likely that you will have few of your attempts at informational pointsaccepted. More likely that your partner (not a dullard but not as bril-liant a competitor as you) or, in the British format, a representative ofthe other team on your side of the motion, will make successfulattempts. The other debaters will make an effort to “freeze–out” the tal-ented debater, answering questions or responding to statements fromthe weaker participants (debate is about looking good relative toopponents, after all). Heckling the speaker, not in lieu of but in con-junction with attempts at points of information might be the onlyoption for you.

Heckling of this type takes the form of a request for a point ofinformation. Typically, debaters providing a verbal cue for their pointof information will offer one of two popular expressions:

• “Point of information.”or• “On that point.”

It is possible to vary the language of the attempt, subtly including anargument in a brief statement, that is, three- or four- word verbalannouncement of the point. A classic heckle. You might say the fol-lowing in an attempt to make a point regarding your criticism of thefactual foundation of an opponent’s argument:

• “Point of reality.”

Perhaps you are tired of your opponents’ business-as-usual, conven-tional restatements of government decrees and pronouncements as thefinal word in public policy. It is possible to attempt a point of informa-tion with the following:

• “On that official propaganda.”

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 227

Likewise, you might begin a point after listening to an opponent prattleon about the dangers of unsupervised artists or treacherous journalists:

• ”On your impression of General Pinochet.”

In these cases, it does not matter if the speaker holding the flooraccepts or refuses the point. If the speaker accepts your point, you willmake it. If the speaker refuses the point, however, the damage is stilldone. You have made an argument about the credibility of the infor-mation or the speaker and the judge will take that claim into consider-ation (perhaps in a subconscious or unconscious way, if not an obviousone). This tactic allows a debater to make a point even in those cir-cumstances when the point of information is refused.

Another effective strategy for heckling during points is to heckle thereply from the speaker holding the floor to your point. To briefly review,the speaker will only recognize you for a single point. No commentary.No multi part questions. No follow-up questions or cross-examination.Certainly, no dialogue. How, then, is it possible to have the final word onthe point, avoiding the ever-so-cute replies from speakers as they signalthat they are never troubled by any issue brought to them during a pointof information (“I am glad you asked that question.” “There you goagain.” “Oh, you could not be more wrong.”)?

The short answer: a brief heckle as they conclude their reply to apoint of information. It might be executed in this manner:

On the motion “This House would use force to make peace,” anopening speaker for the proposition might argue for military interven-tion by the United States of America to promote nation-building anddeter military aggression.

Respondent: “On that point. [The point of information is acceptedby the speaker holding the floor] The United States of Americashould never engage in military intervention. It produces local andregional violence and undermines stability. The experience inVietnam proves it.”Speaker: “If there is a clearly stated military mission in collabora-tion with international support, as well as nation-building and

228


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 228

229


humanitarian aid, intervention can work. The Marshall Plan,which included military forces to provide security and stability inWestern Europe at the conclusion of the Second World War, com-bined with development and humanitarian assistance, promoted aprogressive and independent Europe.”Respondent: [as she seats herself] “Same inputs, different results,in Somalia.”

This tactic may prove to be a particularly effective one. It offers aneffective reply to the point made by the speaker holding the floor. (Itadvances clash and an additional example in the debate). But it does somuch more.

In the typical case, the opposing side makes a point of informationand the speaker holding the floor offers a reply. If the speaker is hasthe requisite intellectual dexterity of the substantial majority of parlia-mentary debaters, the point is effectively countered. This is not a neu-tral position. Due to the linear nature of debating contests (a steadyline of call-and-response to argument points), judges tend to considerthe authority of arguments from the last word on the subject (all otherthings being equal, of course. According to a number of participants indebate communities, judges’ easy reliance on the authority of opinionfrom the most recent utterance of a debate speaker is not related to thelinear construction of debate argumentation but to the absence of mid-and long-term memory of judges. The authors do not approve of thissort of criticism of judges. As the authors, as well as debaters every-where know, many judges also have serious shortcomings regardingshort-term memory.)

What does this tactic mean in the course or outcome of a debate?The speaker holding the floor has an edge relative to the person mak-ing a point of information. A satisfactory reply by a speaker, even anear-satisfactory reply, is usually enough to win the point for thespeaker in the eye, heart, mind or other fleshy organs of the judge. Asuccessful heckle from a respondent might, therefore, effectivelycounter the tendencies of judges to favor speakers.

In addition, a respondent’s heckle leaves the speaker with a thornyproblem. If the speaker replies to the opponent’s commentary, she has

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 229

probably spent much too much time on the point. The point then con-stitutes a genuine distraction for the speaker, undermining the pointsto be made for an effective speech. If the speaker does not respond tothe heckle, an effective reply might win the point for the respondent.

Responding to Points of Information

To be brief, be brief. Points of information should not distract from themessage of the speaker. Even relevant points may not be require muchof an answer. They may not have sufficient import or significance.They may be relevant to the discussion but irrelevant to the issues ofproof for or against a motion.

Be brief but be clear. Let the judge know that you understand theobjection or question and that you have presented a fully satisfactoryrejoinder. Do not return to your speech if the judge is not convinced ofthe reply–she will continue to think of (perhaps obsess over) yourreply, reducing your ability to effectively communicate the next set ofinfo-bits in your speech (you want the judge to actively think alongwith your presentation in real-time, not focus on past content.)

Avoid the rhetorical traps of the maladjusted speaker. Abandon the“Rule of Three.” Avoid rejecting points by saying “Not at this time.” (Itonly encourages your opponent to rise moments later. “Is this a goodtime?” Or moments after that. “Is this a good time?” “Not at this time.”Or nanoseconds after that. “How about now? Is this a good time?”“Not at this time.”) It is quite obviously better to say, “No.” Direct.Clear. Evident. Don’t worry about hurting their feelings. And if theyare that sensitive, they probably needed the push to therapy. So beproud of your work, you Samaritan.

Take points during argument transitions. This tactic minimizes thedistraction of the point. First, complete your argument. At the conclu-sion of your argument, pause, just briefly, to create some rhetoricalspace for a point of information. (You are, in effect, inviting a point ofinformation at this time, at your convenience.)

Before the introduction to your next major point, if an opportuni-ty presents itself, take a point.

230


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 230

231


• Respondent: Point of information.• Speaker: No, thank you. [The speaker holding the floor refuses to

take the point. The respondent sits and the speaker continues withher presentation.] In conclusion, the risks of chemical and biologicalweaponization and proliferation are today greater than the risks asso-ciated with the use of more traditional weapons of mass destructionand terror–nuclear weapons. I will now take your point.

This tactic effectively controls the delivery of points of information tothose times in the speech with the least distracting or confusing effect.It is often the case that the respondent, the person making the point,has forgotten the informational point by the time she is called to standand deliver. Making your opponent seem forgetful and ineffectual is areal plus:

• Respondent: “Point of information.”• Speaker: “No, thank you. [The speaker holding the floor refuses to

take the point. The respondent sits and the speaker continues withher presentation.] In conclusion, the risks of chemical and biologicalweaponization and proliferation are today greater than the risks asso-ciated with the use of more traditional weapons of mass destructionand terror–nuclear weapons. I will now take your point.”

• Respondent: “That’s okay. I don’t have a point.”

Those responding to points of information should prepare retorts toobjectionable, obstructionist and other distractions. As previously noted,there are circumstances in which the adversarial nature of the format isconfused in the minds (?) of some competitors – they become moreaggressive and anxious with points of information as the interactiveopportunity for vengeance. (Old debate proverb: If you come home dur-ing a point of information seeking revenge, dig a grave for two.) Humoris not necessarily the result of these interpersonal confrontations – ten-sion and conflict are more likely. Be prepared and judicious. It is easy toantagonize an opponent, as well as the judge and assembled audience,with an opportunistic and caustic comment. Any such reply should

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 231

loosely abide by dictates better associated with the history of just wartheory: It should be defensive, reactionary, and proportional.

• “Please sit down. We would all like to stay awake for a few moremoments.”

• “Please sit down. You satisfactorily embarrassed yourself last time.”• “No, thank you. I am trying to protect your dignity (or credibility).”• “There are some things that go without saying. Would you mind

being one of them?”

Points of information are often the ally of the speaker holding the floor.It is possible to dismiss the point as an empty gesture from a confusedopponent or to use the point to your strategic advantage (i.e., almostany direct and effective reply is counted as a victory). You might beable to consider the point a “straight line,” using a reply as the “punchline” to make light of an opponent or her ideas.

These tactical advantages are available to you because you hold thefloor. The point of information is a valuable but limited tool. Speakershave the time to respond to even well-expressed points and should beready to do so.


1. Take daily press clippings or an article from a weekly periodicalon a public policy issue or other substantive matter. Make pho-tocopies of the document and distribute to each of participant.Have each of the participants analyze the story and proposeareas of critical investigation. Can the information be challengedfor its historical, economic, social, cultural, political or othercommentary? Have students explain their criticism of the issueor press commentary of the issue.

This exercise trains students in critical evaluation of factualinformation. An examination of opponents’ facts is the basis forthe majority of points of information.

2. Present a case study or historical example. Have students ana-

232


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 232

233


lyze the example. Have students identify counterexamples orsupporting examples for the case study.

This exercise provides a model for one of the more effectivecounters as a point of information–the disagreeable example.The opposing side in a debate, using a point of information,might be able to entirely undermine any abstract claim or clev-erly expressed theory with powerful empirical counterexample.These examples are certainly necessary when your opponenthas his or her own effective examples.

3. Take a passage from a speech or have a debater present a three-or four-minute extemporaneous speech on a narrow motion. Allothers assembled will prepare a point of information and makeattempts to enter them during the brief speech.

This exercise provides real-time training in the creation ofpoints of information. It also teaches floor management for thespeaker, who will inevitably receive a significant number ofpoints of information but will need to maintain her composureand effectively deliver one or two substantive arguments.

4. Create two teams of equal numbers of debaters (the exerciseworks best with four to six debaters per side). Have a debaterpresent a seven-minute speech on a narrow motion. The teamsthen alternate sides, delivering points of information in turn.Each debater has to make a point within a set period of time (typ-ically, 15 or 20 seconds). No points may be repeated. If adebater is repeats or is otherwise unable to make a point, she isremoved from the competition. Debaters are removed for frivo-lous points as well. At the conclusion of the speech, anotherround begins with the remaining competitors. The last side withparticipants wins the contest.

POINTS OF ORDER AND PRIVILEGE

Unlike points of information, those parliamentary points directed tothe opposing side in a debate, a point of order or point of privilegeinvolves a rules or convention violation and is directed to the Speaker

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 233

of the House for an immediate ruling. These points are included in therules of American parliamentary debating and some other debatingformats but they are excluded from the British parliamentary formatand many other parliamentary debate forms.

The speaker holding the floor does not have the option to refuse oraccept these points; consequently, these points do not count against hisor her speaking time. The timekeeper stops time during a point oforder or privilege and resumes the time at the conclusion of the rulingon the point by the Speaker of the House.

Points of Order

A point of order when there is an alleged formal violation of the debate’srules. You may rise on a point of order when a member of the opposingteam violates a rule. As there are few rules in parliamentary debating,points of order are usually reserved for the presentation of a new argu-ment in rebuttals or when a speaker goes over his or her time limit.

To make a point of order, the person rises from her seat and inter-rupts the speaker holding the floor, typically saying, “Point of order.”The timekeeper stops the clock and the person states the point to theSpeaker of the House, explaining the rules violation. Local conventionprimarily guides the administration of these points but one of the fol-lowing is likely to occur:

• A judge listens to the point and issues a ruling on it.• The speaker holding the floor immediately begins to debate the point

and directs this information to the Speaker of House. Nonetheless,many debaters do not adhere to any stipulation that points of orderare not to be debated. The majority of judges seem to encourage areply regarding the point from the speaker holding the floor. Afterbrief argument from both sides, the judge issues a ruling on the point.

• The judge (or designated Speaker of the House) might question theperson making the point, analyzing the information pertaining to therules violation. In this circumstance, the judge will not permit com-mentary on the point from the side receiving the point of informationbut may function as proxy for that side or as Grand Inquisitor, care-

234


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 234

235


fully considering the merits of the point before issuing a ruling.

At the conclusion of the point of order or subsequent argument on thepoint, the judge will issue one of three rulings:

• “Point well taken.”• “Point not well taken.”• “Point taken under consideration.”

If the judge rules, “Point well taken,” the person making the point winsit, meaning that the opposing side is, in fact, in violation of the rules.The offending speaker should immediately cease his or her violation. Ifthe issue involves a new argument in the rebuttal speeches, the speak-er should abandon the new argument and move to another reply or adifferent point of contention. If the speaker is over their allotted time,he or she should hastily conclude their speech.

A judge may use successful points during the deliberation of theoutcome and assignment of individual speaking scores. It is rare,indeed, that a successful point of order will tip the balance of thedebate for a team based solely on the merits of having won a point.Winning a point of order is unlikely to trump the substantive informa-tion from the major speeches in a debate. Success with several pointsof order, however, might indicate to a judge that one side is unable toengage in effective argumentation without introducing a considerablenumber of new issues in the rebuttal speeches. This factor may influ-ence the judge’s final deliberation.

It is more likely that successful points of order will improve the indi-vidual speaker points of a person advancing these winning challenges andmay reduce the points of a speaker who violates the debating rules.

Points of order may be instrumental to the outcome of debates in adifferent way. These points function as “gatekeepers”– they permitaccess for some ideas and exclude others from the discussion. Yourwell-taken point could exclude a new argument from a speaker on theopposing team that might do great damage to a potentially winningargument for your side. Likewise, a successful point might end aspeech from a debater in need of additional (and illegitimate) time to

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 235

decisively answer your arguments. Points of order can influence thesubstantive matter of the debate and the debate’s outcome.

If a point is “not well taken,” the person making the point has lostthe issue. The ruling from the judge or designated Speaker of theHouse means that the speaker is not violating the standing rules ofdebating and may continue with her speech. A judge may hold repeat-ed failures of points of order against the person making them.

The introduction of points not well taken is a serious matter.Points of order are usually reserved for rebuttal speeches (the sin-gle most common violation of the rules is the presentation of newargumentation in rebuttals). Rebuttal time in the American parlia-mentary debate format, for example, is approximately one-half ofthe allocated time for the constructive speeches. The rebuttalspeakers must review the entire debate in that brief time andcogently express the final winning points for their side. Any inter-ruption or distraction is disappointing to the speaker and its merepresence may influence the outcome of the debate.

Points without merit may do as much damage as a well-takenpoint, as they sufficiently intrude on a brief but critically importantspeech. As a consequence, judges are more likely to have a strong neg-ative reaction to failed points of order and may take appropriate andhostile actions, such as factor the failed points into their decision mak-ing or reduce the individual speaker points.

In more and more contemporary debates, judges issue rulings totake points “under consideration,” meaning that a judge will not issuean immediate ruling on the point. The judge will wait until the conclu-sion of the debate and evaluate the point at that time. The point will beone of many factors in the judge’s deliberation, which, in most debates,is private. The debaters may never know how the judge dispensed withthe point of order.

The reason that judges take points under consideration is that itis often a challenging endeavor to make an immediate ruling fromthe chair. In some cases, a ruling is evident. If a speaker has eightminutes to make a speech and has used nine minutes and a personon the opposing side offers a point of order and states that speakingovertime is against the rules, it is quite a simple matter for a judge

236


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 236

237


to issue a “point well-taken” ruling. It is a more complex consider-ation, for example, for a judge to listen to a debate featuring dozensof arguments and examples for 30 minutes or more, and, with onlya moment for deliberation, issue as decisive and fair ruling regard-ing the “newness” of an issue.

New arguments in rebuttals can be vexing issues. Judges often wantto get the decision right. At the very least, they do not want to make apublic pronouncement that is clearly “wrong.” It is better decision formany judges to devote some time for deliberation on points of order.

What do you do when a judge announces “point taken under con-sideration?” This decision presents challenges for speakers. For exam-ple, you are delivering the final rebuttal speech in a debate. You pres-ent an argument that you believe is a logical extension of an argumentfrom your partner’s earlier speech. A member of the opposing teamrises on a point of order, stating that your position is a new argument.You are permitted to respond to the point and the judge patiently lis-tens to both the point and your reply and then states: “Taken underconsideration.” What to do? Should you continue with that portion ofyour speech as if you have won the point? The judge has not stoppedyour presentation by issuing a different ruling. But what if the judgeultimately decides in favor of the point of order? In that case, yourargument will be ruled out of consideration. You will have then wast-ed important time in your final stand discussing an issue that will playno role in the outcome of the debate.

Should you dispute the point of order itself after a non-committal“taken under consideration” ruling is issued by the judge? Is it appro-priate to answer the argument of the point of order by trying to estab-lish that your argument was a logical extension of a previously estab-lished issue when your speaking time resumes? Will the judge thinkyou are taking advantage of your opponent, that you are arguing thepoint of order after the judge has closed argumentation on the pointwith her ruling?

This confusion may be a reason to dispense with the point oforder altogether. Judges or designated Speakers of the Houseincreasingly decide the issue in private and after the debate has con-cluded. New arguments, both those marked in a formal way during

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 237

the course of the debate and other new arguments identified by thejudge, are almost always excluded by the judge during deliberation.Judges do not want to include new rebuttal arguments in their deci-sions. They do not believe that the presentation of new issues so latein the contest adds to the quality of the debate nor is it fair to theparticipants on the other side (the victims, if you will, of this das-tardly tactic or debate malfeasance). Because judges are already pre-disposed to ignore new arguments, it is evident that debaters do notgenuinely require the protection of this particular parliamentary rule– the point of order.

Of course, debaters do not get much protection anyway, if thejudge issues a “point taken under consideration” ruling. As previouslydescribed, this ruling only confuses the matter and confounds thedebater, leaving the speaker with unsavory options during a speechwith little time and lots of important work to do. Points that distractparticipants from effective summaries of the contest’s salient issues areprobably not worth keeping.

Points of personal privilege

A point of personal privilege suggests an egregious personal violationby the opposing team in a debate and may be another case of an unnec-essary parliamentary point. It is about bad behavior. It is not a rulesviolation per se.

You may rise on a point of personal privilege during an opponent’sspeech in two circumstances: (1) The speaker holding the floor hasmade boorish, crude or insulting remarks directed at you or (2) Yourposition has been seriously misstated by the speaker. Like a point oforder, a point of personal privilege is directed to the judge or designat-ed Speaker of the House for a ruling. All other general guidelinesregarding points of order apply, including the administration of thepoint of personal privilege. In response to a point of personal privilege,one of the following will occur:

• A judge listens to the point and issues a ruling on it.• The speaker holding the floor will immediately begin to debate the

238


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 238

239


point with the person accusing her of a rules violation. After briefargument from both sides, the judge issues a ruling on the point.

• The judge (or designated Speaker of the House) might question theperson making the point, analyzing the information pertaining to therules violation.

A point of personal privilege is not available as a parliamentary pointin many debating formats. Even when expressly authorized by therules, it is quite infrequently employed. It is almost never used tocounter crude commentary from an opposing speaker. You do havepoints of information and speeches to respond to any venting or hos-tility from your opponent in the debate and we do not recommend aresponse in kind to boorishness. It seems a bit extreme to unbosomyourself to the judge and request the chair’s protection, a rhetoricaldefense shield, from your opponents.

A point may also be made to avoid a misstatement from the oppos-ing side. Misstatement from the opposing side? This also seems unlike-ly. Compared to many public speakers, including professional speak-ers, debaters are articulate, organized, and cogent. Speeches include acertain amount of redundancy to make a comprehensive argument (ifthe analysis of an issue is unclear, the supporting historical or empiri-cal example or other evidence usually is sufficient to sort it out). Thereis little likelihood of a misstatement so fundamentally at odds with apresentation that it needs to be met with a parliamentary point.

Points of personal privilege are sometimes used to produce a tacti-cal advantage. An experienced debater might argue that an opponent’srefutation to her argument claim is nothing other than a “misstatement”of the issue. She would then seek a ruling on a point of personal privi-lege to effectively eliminate an argument reply. But debating includesthe manipulation of the rhetoric of an opponent. A misstatement is notvery different from, and may be precisely the same thing as, a power-ful rejoinder. Points of personal privilege may exploit the judge toaccomplish that which a debater ought to do on her own, namely, argueissues effectively with the opposing side.

Points of order and personal privilege are troublesome additions to

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 239

parliamentary debating. Although it is possible to use them judiciouslyto address select and important violations of rules or conduct, they areseldom employed in that manner. Common rulings from the chair (e.g.,“taken under consideration”) amplify problems with these points.Debaters would do well to limit the use of these points to extraordi-narily serious breaches of rules or conduct, those rare violations thatcould profoundly affect the outcome of a debate.

240


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 240

241


CHAPTER 11:

SKILLS

Performance and Speaking Fundamentals

Parliamentary debaters must be good public speakers. It is notenough to merely have the right argument at the right time. Tobe persuasive, you must present your arguments with authori-

ty and credibility. You must win over the good will of your audience.How can you accomplish this? Public speaking, like argumentation, ismore of an art than a science. Good public speakers have many prac-tices and habits in common; however, they also embrace their ownunique and individual styles. Think of the good public speakers youmay have seen or heard. Barbara Jordan and Winston Churchill wereboth powerful, inspirational speakers. They had different ideas and dif-ferent persuasive techniques. They sounded and gestured differently.Their speeches were organized in different ways to different effects.Yet both were able to motivate groups of people to act on their propo-sitions.

Public speaking is an exercise in both content and performance.You may have the best arguments, the best examples, and the best evi-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 241

dence to substantiate your side in a debate, but if your performance ispoor, you may still fail to persuade an audience. Just as you shouldresearch and think critically about your arguments, so you shouldpractice and think critically about your performance.

Initially, you should endeavor to speak clearly and at an appropriatevolume. Speakers who mumble or otherwise mutter incomprehensiblymay puzzle or annoy an audience, but will rarely be able to persuadethem. Just as you should not mumble under your breath while speaking,so too should you not YELL AT THE JUDGE AT THE TOP OFYOUR LUNGS. Audiences do not like to be berated or otherwise lam-basted by speakers. Try to use an appropriate volume when speaking.Articulation is also important. If you want to be understood, try not torun your words together or otherwise fail to pronounce clearly.

A good speaking performance requires good delivery. You willhave to use vocal variety, appropriate gestures, and good word econo-my to effectively deliver your speeches. By “vocal variety” we meanthat you should vary the tone, pitch, rate, and volume of your speechto cultivate and maintain the audience’s interest. Few things are morelikely to induce instant sleepiness than a speaker who delivers her pres-entation in a monotone.

You will also need to use appropriate nonverbal communication.We do not only communicate with our voices. Our bodies and theirconstituent parts are also vital tools for communication. Some debatersare notorious for using overly expressive gestures – they wave theirhands about in a manner more appropriate for guiding airplanes intotheir gates or practicing semaphore. If your hands seem to be substan-tively out of your control or serve to fan or otherwise air-condition theroom, you should rethink your use of gestures. We recommend thatyou gesture sparingly, using your hands to emphasize important pointsor transitions, and not as a metronome to keep time during yourspeech. Be conscious of how you use your hands – consider using athree-part gesturing method whereby you first get ready to gesture,then you gesture, then you put your gesture away in a graceful man-ner. Do not hold a pen or other object in your hand while you speak.It appears to be a security blanket and communicates to the judge thatyou are insecure about speaking. Such props are also distracting. Some

242


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 242

243

SKILLS

debaters, holding a ballpoint pen during their speech, will uncon-sciously and repeatedly click the point in and out while they speak. Itis this kind of behavior that drives judges to an early grave, or at leastto civil commitment.

Do not pace, shuffle, watusi, or otherwise move your feet in a dis-tracting manner. Try to plant yourself and remain planted throughoutyour speech (although subtle, slight, natural movement is of courseacceptable). Debates are enough like tennis matches without the audi-ence having to constantly follow you with their eyes. Some debaters tryto implement a method of using steps to signal transitions. Do not dothis. It is distracting and appears amateurish. The judge will be leftwondering why you cannot restrict your waltzing to the dance floor.Our point here is certainly not that dance has no place in debates; butuse it judiciously and not simply as a nervous or otherwise misguidedhabit. Our best advice for nonverbal communication is to appear con-fident at all times. Do not cross your arms or appear to hug yourself.Remember: You are good enough and smart enough.

Make good eye contact. If you are nervous about your speech orabout public speaking in general, you are not alone. Most people ratepublic speaking among their top fears. Do not stare at your notes, theceiling, or just over the judge’s shoulder while you speak. You shouldmake eye contact with the judge or audience during your speech. Ifyou have trouble doing this, you should consider practicing in front ofa mirror. By making eye contact with yourself, you can make eye con-tact with other people. A bit of advice on this front: If you are speak-ing in front of an audience, particularly a large one, you should try tomake eye contact with individuals at different positions in the crowdrather than simply scanning the crowd with your eyes. The scanningstrategy can leave a crowd feeling as if you have looked at them butmade eye contact with no one.

Often, debaters will look at their opponents while they are speak-ing. This is a terrible idea and is generally considered to be an amateurmistake. You are not trying to convince the other team of your side ofthe issue. Even if you are the most gifted debater on the planet, theyare unlikely to agree with you – it is, after all, their job to oppose you.You are trying to convince the judge or audience. Therefore, you

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 243

should look at the judge or audience. Looking at the other team whileyou are speaking can also put you at a major disadvantage, becauseyou seem to invite points of information. If you appear to be insultingor otherwise criticizing the other team in a direct manner, they willinvariably pop up repeatedly for points of information. Just as youshould not look at the other team while speaking, so you should notaddress the other team directly by prefacing your arguments with“you…”

• “You just don’t say anything about this disadvantage of ours.”• “We’re crushing you on this argument.”• “You bring shame on this House.”• “You are ridiculous, wrong, and absurd. You are abusive. You don’t

have a prayer of winning this debate.”

If you engage in this kind of chest-pounding, you will most likely getwhat you deserve. You should not only avoid addressing the otherteam as “you;” you should also avoid hostility at all costs. Of course,good-natured jibes and other heckling, as we saw in the last chapter,are vital parts of parliamentary debate. Debate is adversarial, butdebaters should not be adversarial with each other.

It is particularly important that you are never adversarial or hos-tile toward your partner. EVER. Even if you are convinced that yourpartner is the worst debater in the history of the activity; even if youare prone to compare yourself to Job for being saddled with such a ter-rible rock, you should NEVER, EVER talk badly about or behave ina disrespectful manner towards your partner. Your relationship withyour debate partner is professional. You must conduct it in such a man-ner. Never discuss conflicts with your partner with anyone except yourpartner or your coach, and always in private. Meanness to your part-ner will make you look like the worst sort of jerk, damage your com-petitive prospects, and undoubtedly hurt their feelings.

Sometimes debaters conflate hostile behaviors and confidentbehaviors. The two could not be more different. Hostile debaters aremean, rude, irritable, and often so insecure that they must make othersfeel badly in order to feel good about themselves or about their per-

244


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 244

245

SKILLS

formance. Confident debaters display forthrightness in explainingideas. They speak in a convincing way and command attention withouthaving to demand attention with cruelty or by lambasting their com-petitors and colleagues. You should always appear confident, calm, andcollected in debates, even if you are losing. Be careful that you do notinadvertently invite opposition to your arguments by engaging in nerv-ous behaviors like lowering your voice or trailing off at the end of yoursentences.

In the long run, effective debate and public speaking necessitatesefficient and effective word choice. There are two critical considera-tions for debaters in this area: word economy and word choice.

Word economy

In a formal debate, you must labor under time constraints. Speech timeis always limited by the rules set by your particular format, so you needto choose your words carefully. Debaters who exhibit good word econo-my use the minimum number of words necessary to present their argu-ments. Economical word choice allows them to present the maximumnumber of independent arguments and examples possible in their lim-ited speech time. If you use a lot of filler words, you will not be usingyour speech time to its maximum advantage.

Think about how you speak in everyday conversation. You willfind that you use lots of filler words that do not contribute to yourstatements. In America, people often use “like” (“And then I was like,dude, we’re totally turning your case advantage;” “Like, are you goingto eat that burrito?”) or “you know” (“So, you know, I was wonderingif you, you know, wanted to get some coffee or something?” “Thismovie is completely, you know, terrible.”). Interjections, such as “um”and “er,” are also used.

Debaters use these filler words plus all kinds of other, more debate-specific, filler words and phrases. They punctuate their thoughts withphrases such as:

• “remember” (Used once, it’s completely suitable, even desirable.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 245

Used repeatedly, it’s highly annoying, massively redundant, and a ter-rific waste of time: it takes a whole second to say, and if you say it 15times in a speech, you are in effect sacrificing 15 seconds of yourspeech time.)

• “Ladies and gentlemen” (Yes, we know – sometimes you need to usethis combination honorific to address your audience, but there is noneed to punctuate so many of your sentences with it. Everybodyknows you’re just saying it when you don’t know what you’re goingto say next.)

• “in fact” (This phrase places in doubt the speaker’s overall grasp ofthe facts by the 30th time she has used it. She does, perhaps, protesttoo much.)

You most likely use all these verbal fillers and many more. What’sworse, you may not even realize that you, like just about everyone whohas ever debated, have bad word economy habits. Try to diagnose andrepair these bad habits. We suggest that you tape yourself debating –videotape, if possible, and then pay close attention to how you phraseyour arguments. Once you diagnose a word economy problem, it is rel-atively easy to solve. If you remain conscious of the word(s) you aretrying to fix, you will try to avoid them normally. Practice speakingmore slowly and deliberately, and focus on the individual words as theycome out of your mouth.

Word choice

Just as you should use an economy of words, so too should you respectthe admonition offered in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and “choosewisely.” In the section on impact assessment, we will explore more howimportant it is to use vivid language to persuade judges and audiences.In debate, we talk a lot about the concept of “power wording.” Thewords you use will shape the reality that the judge perceives. Do youdescribe a decline in the stock market as a “correction” or a “crash?”Do you describe discrimination by the state as “inequality” or “slow-motion genocide?” Is a military invasion a “police action” or a “war?”Consider that your words matter, and directly affect how your argu-

246


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 246

247

SKILLS

ments will be perceived. Strong wording will always make your argu-ments seem more credible. There is one caveat to this rule, though: Ifyou routinely use “power wording” to frame arguments that are obvi-ously weak, you will lose credibility. For further reference on this sub-ject, see: “Wolf, The Boy Who Cried.”

There are many other word choice decisions you can make indebates to improve your effectiveness as a speaker. For example,consider using selective repetition to emphasize your most criticalarguments. Specifically, quote your opponents when appropriate.Often you can take their dubious statements and turn them toyour advantage.

The words you use reflect how you and your arguments are per-ceived in the debate. In order to be a decent human being, avoid prej-udiced bias in appeals that target some groups at the expense of others.In order to be an effective debater, avoid exclusive language. Useinclusive language instead. Make appeals to sympathy rather thanstereotypes. People think highly of themselves – if you can convincethe judge or audience that innocent people are persecuted, that deci-sions are arbitrary, that there are conspiracies or issues that affect themof which they have little knowledge, then the judge or audience willbelieve that the harm might happen to them.

As a final note, always be considerate of the physical circum-stances in which you are performing. If you are speaking frombehind a podium, don’t put your hands on the podium and keepthem there. Try to move out from behind the podium at least onceduring your speech to dispel the audience’s suspicion that you aresome sort of talking head. You will need to learn how to use a micro-phone, if you don’t know already. Don’t speak too close to or faraway from the microphone, or you will massively distort your natu-ral speaking voice. Speak into the middle of the microphone so your“p’s” don’t pop. When speaking in front of a camera, keep your ges-tures inside the frame of your body. Use exaggerated speaking,including louder and clearer delivery so the sound isn’t muddy. Youwill also need to glance at the camera rather than stare at it – theaudience will also expect you to make more eye contact with youropponents in a televised debate than in an audience debate.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 247

Humor and Heckling

Parliamentary debates are engaging and dynamic events. Unlike mostformal speaking engagements and other forms of academic contestdebating, they are designed to encourage speech interruption from theopposing side of the motion (for example, points of information) andthe assembled participants and audience (with verbal and non-verbalheckling).

In all formats, humor and heckling play important roles in parlia-mentary debate’s dynamism. Humor has striking persuasive power inan oral presentation. It motivates the audience to engage in critical lis-tening. The audience, including judges for the contest, wants to beentertained as well as informed. Debates go on too long for a dullrecitation of facts.

Humor not only connects the speaker with the judge and audiencebut it enhances the credibility of other arguments in a presentation.The use of humor is popularly associated with higher-level criticalthinking skills and intelligence. (This is the case despite the fact thatthe field of humor includes forms that are decidedly not funny – thepun and the practical joke are examples. These weak attempts might,at best, amuse an oaf, or, in the plural, oaves.) This association ofhumor and wit with intellectual sophistication reflects favorably on aspeaker’s other, and frequently rational, lines of argument.

Debaters should prepare to use humor in the same way they mightprepare to express an opinion on historical, political or social events.Research and practice are keys to the effective use of humor in speeches.

There are hundreds of texts providing reference material forhumor. Dictionaries of humorous quotations are available. Websitescollect the malapropisms of political figures and celebrities Periodicalssuch as The Onion (www.theonion.com) offer models of humor, includ-ing, in its headlines, the elements of surprise, satire, and irony.

• SURPRISE: Man Accidentally Ends Business Call with ‘I Love You’ • SATIRE: Depression Hits Losers Hardest

248


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 248

249

SKILLS

• IRONY: Sculptor Criticized for Turning Women into Objects

The hardest working people in show business are stand-up comedians,who toil for many hours to craft minutes of material. Debaters do notneed to devote similar effort, but some preparation is required.Debaters are not expected to make the same kind of presentation as acomedian. For this, debaters ought to be thankful. Debate audiences,starved as they are for any sort of entertainment, are a receptive crowdfor subtle wit and drollery. It is not necessary to be “laugh out loudfunny” to be a hit in the debate world.

A speaker should use humor at the beginning of her speech, cer-tainly within the first 30 seconds. Early use encourages critical listen-ing on the part of the assembled judges and audience as they eagerlyawait the next funny bit. It doesn’t have to come until two or three min-utes later, at the point of the speech at which they believe you mighthave already exhausted your treasure chest of jokes. Some wit or clev-erness toward the end of the speech is also appreciated: Merely a fewclever lines, some prepared in advance and some extemporaneous com-ments rising from the clash in the debate, should suffice for an enter-taining speech.

Debaters should consider the circumstances of the format and theconditions in which they would use humor. Here are examples:

SPEECH INTRODUCTION

“I delivered this speech once before in a prison. I apologize to thoseof you who have heard it before.”

ON THE CASE PROPER

“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, andwrong.” -H. L. Mencken“‘I am from the government and am here to help you’ is only slightlyless trustworthy than I’ll respect you in the morning.”“I suppose this is their idea of progress: We are going in the same cir-cle, only faster.”“That is an argument with few equals – only superiors.”“On a less serious note, my opponents claimed…”

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 249

“The plural of anecdote is not evidence.” “If ignorance is bliss, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to introduceyou Mr./Ms. Happy.”

Heckling, the interruption of speeches with verbal commentary ornonverbal signals from those individuals who are not recognized as thespeaker at the time, is a welcome part of parliamentary debating inmany parts of the world. It is, however, an issue that debaters shouldnegotiate with the judge or understand from local community norms.Some perceive heckling as disruptive or rude behavior. You will wantto know if your heckling performance is a welcome addition or likelyto produce calls for security guards.

Heckling can be supportive. It is common practice for debaters toknock with their knuckles or slap their hand on a table or bench tocheer particularly well reasoned ideas of colleagues. (They might alsocheer, for that matter, the rhetorical blunders of opponents.) Muchheckling is negatively inspired and directed to the speakers on theother side of the motion. Debaters are likely to call “Shame” on anopponent who misrepresents facts. These heckles can be effective atgetting the judge to focus attention on a clever insight (an argumentturn, for example) or a serious mischaracterization of an opponent’sspeech (e.g., a cry of “Shame” when an opponent insists that you failedto discuss a salient point that you believe you decimated with severaloutstanding arguments). You should be judicious about heckles,because their frequent use undermines their effectiveness. The judge isaware that you support your partner or the other team on the same sideof a motion. General support for other speakers on your side only iden-tifies your use of heckling as non-strategic, perhaps boorish. Judgesare quite aware that you believe that your opponents are wrong when-ever they challenge your ideas. The repeated cry of “Shame” loses itsauthority if it comes to mean that you disagree with the opposing sideof a debate.

Other heckles can be effective. A counterexample or brief expres-sion (no more than two or three words) that makes a complete andpowerful argument may sufficiently disrupt a speaker’s presentation. Ifa speaker, for example, suggests that United Nations peacekeeping

250


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 250

251

SKILLS

forces are ineffectual in managing conflicts, a single counter –“Cyprus” – might require a further explanation from the speaker to sat-isfactorily express her point to a judge.

Heckling is distinguished from barracking, which is general dis-agreement with the claims of a speaker (“No, no, unh-unh, nyet, no,nein, never, not at this time, no, absolutely not…”). A heckle shouldexpress a coherent argument in a concise manner without fundamen-tally disrupting the pace and delivery of a speech. Debaters shouldresearch and prepare for heckling in the same way they would prepareto use humor. They should also prepare counters to boorish hecklers.Some examples follow.

REPLIES TO HECKLERS

“I would like to help you out. Which way did you come in?”“Yes, I am sure we all remember our first beer.”“If I have said anything to offend or insult you, please believe me.”“There are some things that go without saying. Would you mindbeing one of them?”

Debating Impacts

One thing that differentiates successful debaters from their less accom-plished colleagues is the ability to assess and explain impacts. In thissection, we will discuss some common criteria for assessing impactsand then proceed to offer some pearls of wisdom (which is not todescribe you, gentle reader, as swine) about explaining impacts in away that makes them seem tangible and realistic.

To debate effectively, you will need to learn how to weigh andmeasure impacts using an array of criteria by which you can assess therelative importance and significance. One of the interesting thingsabout debate is that the criteria for what is to count as significant arealways up for debate. Do not assume that you, the judge, and the otherdebaters agree on what is important for the purpose of evaluating thedebate. Even in a non-confrontational situation, you could most likelynot agree on a flavor of ice cream. Far better to stake out the battle forwhat is to count as significant early and often in the debate. Contrary

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 251

to some popular coaching advice, weighing arguments is not andshould not be confined to the last rebuttal (though it is certainly essen-tial to that speech). What follows is a list of some common criteria youcan use to compare and contrast impacts (and also, not coincidentally,all kinds of other arguments, argument components, food choices, tel-evision programs, vacation options, and elective surgeries).

Number of people affected

This is one of the simplest impact yardsticks you can employ. It seemsalmost maudlin to say that some things affect more people than others,yet debaters routinely forget to use this basic calculus. If your case forthe proposition claims to save millions of lives by preventing war, pesti-lence, famine, plague, or an ABBA reunion tour, then you should prob-ably mention at some point that your plan will save a lot of lives. Thistactic becomes particularly important when the opposition argues adisadvantage with a substantially smaller impact than that of your trulygargantuan advantage.

Degree of harm inflicted

The number of people affected is rarely, however, adequate criteria byitself. You also have to ask yourself what happens to those people.Otherwise, you would have to say that it would be worth it to summari-ly execute ten people if it meant that 50 would not have to wait in line forthe bus. You also need to assess the degree of harm inflicted on the poten-tially hapless victims of the present system and the disadvantage (forexample). The aggregate “size” of an impact is usually evaluated with ref-erence to both the number of people affected and the degree of harm (ormaiming, polyester, Ricki Lake, etc…) they must endure.

Probability/Risk

Of course, it is not enough simply to assess the “size” of an impact: Alltoo often, debaters ignore this basic dictate and fetishize impacts ofgreat size and magnitude. Probability must figure into any even

252


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 252

253

SKILLS

remotely sophisticated impact calculus. It is an integral part of oureveryday decision making, after all. We decide, for example, to crossthe street on a daily basis despite the low-probability, high-impact pos-sibility that we might be run over by a bus. We make this decisionbecause we think the probability of such a collision is a low risk. Risk isa very important concept in assessing impact debates. As a debater, ajudge, or both, you will routinely have to assign risk to particular argu-ments in debates. A convenient formula that some people use to deter-mine the real risk of something is “Risk = Probability * Impact.”While we are adverse to the mad proliferation of quasi-mathematicalformulas that purport to describe everything in our society these days(“War = Peace,” “Social Value = Income * Good Looks”), we do find aparticular charm in this equation.

In the case of your potential surprise meeting with a wayward bus,we could assess the risk using this kind of formula: The probability isvery low, and the impact high, so we see the risk as negligible. Wecould tinker with this formula as it suited us. For example, if the streetyou needed to cross was routinely rife with runaway traffic, the prob-ability of getting hit would go up and you might have to think serious-ly about how much you really need to cross that street. You can alsochange perceived risk by boosting the impact. Let’s say that we couldsomehow convince you that there was a very small, but real chancethat if you walked across the street you would set into motion a chainof events that would lead to human extinction. Here we’ve got analmost incalculably large impact combined with a small risk. What doyou do? Do you decide that you’ll just skip that street altogether? Ordo you write us off as insane and take the risk anyway?

It is important to think about questions like this because you need tothink about how average judges and audience members see and evaluaterisks in their own life. So much of our understanding about risk assess-ment creeps into debates unannounced; better to assign nametags so noone stands around looking awkward at the punch table.

Systemic vs. one-time

Impacts, like gelatin desserts and other taste treats from the critical

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 253

“hooves” group, come in a vast range of types and palatabilities. Oneuseful way to categorize impacts is as either systemic or one-time. A one-time impact is just that: an impact that will only happen once. If youargue that the proposition team’s case to regulate genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) will cause a trade war or a shooting war, that is aone-time impact that may or may not outweigh the case advantagesdepending on their relative established magnitude.

Systemic impacts, on the other hand, occur continuously, eitherthroughout time or space or some Star Trek-ish combination of both. Manyenvironmental impacts are systemic, e.g., the presence of PCBs and diox-ins in water can cause cancer, deformities, and death for many generations.So we can say, for example, that in a particular region there are a hundredincidents of cancer per year due to contaminated air or water. Over time, thisimpact adds up to be a tremendous amount of disease and death. It is crit-ical that when you argue systemic impacts, you impress upon the judge oraudience that the cumulative effect is quite staggering. It’s not as if, for exam-ple, the Great Lakes will spontaneously clean themselves.

In the final rebuttals, impact debates quite often reduce to a com-parison of systemic versus one-time consequences. You need to callthese risks by name and compare them explicitly for the judge:

“The opposition team says that our pesticide regulations will causea trade war and that this may lead to a shooting war. Even if they’reright about this dubious claim, we still win this debate because ourcase advantages are bigger over time. The continued effects of dan-gerous pesticides will cause tens of thousands of deaths over time.This is certainly a larger consequence than a minor fistfight oversneaker imports.”

The debate over continuing sanctions on Iraq is a good example of howthis kind of impact comparison works in public policy forums. Theargument for continuing sanctions is, basically, that the probability andimpact of Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction is very large.This (more or less) one-time impact is thought by some to trump thesystemic impacts of sanctions, which include mass starvation and thedeath of tens of thousands of children every year. Whether or not you

254


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 254

255

SKILLS

agree with this calculus is another thing entirely.

Prior consideration

In some debates, impact comparison and assessment will involve a debateabout competing ethical or moral frameworks. One team may argue thattheir impacts must be considered before evaluating the opposing team’simpacts. One classic, recurring example of this phenomenon is the “life vs.rights” debate. Let’s say that the proposition team defends a case that putsa stop to racial profiling in the USA. They argue that this profiling by raceor ethnicity is a violation of human and constitutional rights and should berejected because of its latent racism. The opposition team argues, inresponse, that a ban on racial profiling will greatly hamper law enforcementagencies’ ability to fight crime and terrorism, leading to loss of life and prop-erty. How should we compare these impacts?

A smart proposition team will argue, in essence, that the ends of apolicy do not justify its means of implementation. That is, they will saythat the government’s obligation to protect rights is a prior consideration.In order to win the debate on their terrorism disadvantage, the oppo-sition team will have to show that the debate should be resolved usinga consequentialist calculus. Consequentialism, often conflated with utili-tarianism, is a doctrine that the moral rightness of an act or policydepends entirely on its outcome or consequences.

We do not intend here to rehash the last several thousand years’worth of thinking about political and moral philosophy in order to clar-ify the difference between consequentialist and non-consequentialistperspectives on policy making. It will, however, greatly behoove you toread up on these perspectives so that you can defend both sides of thisdebate. Consider preparing a critique of consequentialist reasoning,which can be very useful, particularly on the proposition side, if manyof your pre-prepared cases have small advantages or impacts.

Independent vs. dependent

Some impacts are said to be dependent on others to achieve their fullforce. How would you compare, for example, the relative importance

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 255

of equality and liberty? One way would be to explain that equality isdependent on liberty. Consider that equality is (generally speaking) theequitable distribution of freedoms, resources, opportunities, or happi-ness. In order to ensure equality, you could say, we must first have lib-erty, resources, opportunity, or happiness. Others say (in a very sim-plistic manner, to be sure) about weighing loss of life against loss ofrights that rights are useless if you are dead.

“Most grievous error”

Some impacts are said to be so unbelievably catastrophic (usually nuclearwar or global climate change) that even a negligible risk warrants actionto prevent them. If you look again at the risk equation above, you’ll seehow this works. If the impact is infinite, then any non-zero probabilitymultiplied by infinity still adds up to be an infinite risk. See, math classisn’t so tough. If this calculus seems a little odd to you, though, you’re notalone. Even though the consequences of nuclear war or global climatechange are potentially inconceivably horrible, it does not therefore followthat they are literally infinite. Further, this example clearly demonstratesthe ultimate fallibility of the risk equation. Useful though math formulasare in debate (which is to say not very much), they are no substitute forgood, well-reasoned argument. If we could just calculate our way throughthe dilemmas of human affairs, we would have no need for debate (or per-haps language) at all.

“Try or die”

A cousin to the “most grievous error” argument, the “try or die” argu-ment has become immensely popular in debate in recent years. Thephrase “try or die” is a kind of slogan that appears with alarming fre-quency in proposition team rebuttals as an attempt to justify imple-mentation of the plan. Here’s how this argument works: The proposi-tion team tries to show that there is a gigantic problem in the statusquo. This is the “die” part of the equation. The proposition team is try-ing to establish that we’re all going to die (not literally all of us, nor willit necessarily involve our deaths, per se – perhaps just a light maiming;

256


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 256

257

SKILLS

the idea is to show that a catastrophic impact is inevitable in the statusquo). The “try” part of the equation is the part where you decide toendorse the plan, even if you are unsure whether it can actually reme-diate the detailed harm. Thus the rhetorical trope of “try or die”: Theproposition team tries to convince the judge that they might as well trythe plan since the consequences of not solving the problem would be sounbelievably huge. This rebuttal technique, while startlingly effective,is generally recognized to be the last resort of proposition teams withpoor solvency arguments and dubious plans.

Suggested Exercise:

Below find several pairs of competing impacts. Using the tech-niques above, compare them. You could, for example, argue thatone is bigger than the other in scope or magnitude. Perhaps oneis systemic while the other is one-time. Pick one of the pair andshow why it is worse than its companion impact. Then show whythe reverse comparison is true. • economic growth vs. environmental degradation• warfare vs. poverty• individual rights vs. social welfare• earthquakes vs. flooding• nuclear proliferation vs. biological weapons proliferation

Explaining Impacts

Do it. Explain your impacts. Do not assume that the judge or otherdebaters involved will see them as the tragic, grievous circumstances thatyou perceive them to be. Recall that in the chapter on argument theory wementioned Aristotle’s concept of pathos, which is appeal to the emotions ofthe audience. To consistently and successfully win debates about impacts,you must appeal both to the logic and emotions of your judges. All toooften, debaters simply fail to explain their impacts in a way that makesthem tangible to the judge. It is not enough, for example, to say that yourplan is a good idea because it ameliorates poverty, or stops inflation, or

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 257

cleans up the air, or bans bad toupees, or even because nine out of ten den-tists endorse it. To make an impact persuasive, you must flesh it out.Personalize it. Help the judge visualize the potential consequences of notvoting for your side. Judges like to vote for plans that seem realistic andbeneficial. In this way, they are just like average consumers, who want topurchase products that they are reasonably certain will solve an immedi-ate need. Understanding this aspect of judge psychology will enable youto adapt your arguments accordingly.

Most debates are, in fact, won or lost on good impact assessmentand explanation. We’ve already given you some tools to use in com-paring your impacts against those of the other team. But comparison isno good without a concomitant explanation of exactly what the judge“gets” when she votes for your side. For example, you could just say:“The plan is good because it brings people out of poverty. This out-weighs their economy disadvantage.” Or, you could say:

“Hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children, are starv-ing or malnourished in our country right now because of endemicpoverty, and few of these have any hope of surviving to make a mean-ingful life for themselves. Imagine what it’s like to live like this – nofood, no shelter, no clothing, constantly wracked by disease. Then,imagine what a tremendous boon the plan would be. Income redistri-bution would give these families a real chance at life and would, overtime, save millions and millions of lives by lifting a whole segment ofsociety out of poverty. The opposition team would have you believethat economic considerations come first, but this is the same econom-ic system that is literally built on the backs of the same people the plan istrying to help. So corporations lose some money? So what? That’s asmall price to pay to lift up the most indigent among us.”

The speaker is making the same basic argument as “The plan is goodand outweighs their economy disadvantage,” but she uses a variety ofverbal and persuasive techniques to make the argument more tangibleby building on it. When we exhort you to explain your impacts, wemean just that: Explain your impacts.

If you have trouble with this process, try thinking in terms of

258


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 258

259

SKILLS

“because.” Begin with an impact claim like this one: “Ozone depletionis bad.” Then expand on it by using a series of “because” statements:

“Ozone depletion is bad ….because…. more UV radiation will reachthe surface of the earth, and that’s bad ….because…. many people willget skin cancer as a result, and that’s bad ….because…. skin cancer isoften fatal, and will become more fatal as UV intensity increases.”

Try this process using the suggested exercise below to learn how toexplain impacts. Remember – judges like to vote for some tangible riskor result. If you can convince them that your risks or results are moretangible, then you will win more debates.

Suggested Exercise:

Explain why each of the following impacts is bad. If you havetrouble generating explanations, use the “because” method.

floods forest firesglobal warming operabreast cancer imperialismsexism inflationdrought weapons proliferationslavery David Hasselhoffimprisonment cheese in a canresource wars famineinequality

Tips for Rebuttals

A lot of impact assessment happens (hopefully) in the final rebuttals ofa formal debate, your last chance to impress the judge with your com-mand of the issues at hand. Many debaters, perhaps echoing sociallymaladjusted behaviors learned in primary school, will try too hard toimpress the judge (“Ooh, please pick me, teacher! I’m ever so smart!”)

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 259

by trying to win every single argument in the debate. This strategyignores one of the most valuable rebuttal techniques you can employ:the fine art of strategic concession. Good debaters know when to con-cede arguments to strengthen their overall position. In impact debates,you can use a version of strategic concession to solidify your winningposition. The key phrases to use are:

“Even if we lose this, we still win because…..”“At worst, they’re just winning that ….., but this still doesn’t trumpour position because……”

What these phrases have in common is that they take seriously the possi-bility that the other team might be winning some of the arguments in thedebate. The “even if” argument is one of the most powerful phrases youcan use in a rebuttal speech: “Even if they win this argument that our planincreases government spending, we’re still winning the debate becausewe prove that spending is worthwhile”; “Even if we lose this particularadvantage, we still win the debate based on the cumulative strength of ourother advantages”; “Even if you think this link turn argument is tenuous,the fact remains that they haven’t ever answered it.” These are importantphrases to use in rebuttal impact assessment.

Note Taking and Critical Listening

Good listening and note-taking skills are critical elements for consistentdebate performances and successes. Since debate is, in large part, aboutrefutation and responsive or reactionary argumentation, it probably goeswithout saying that in order to debate, you’re going to have to learn to lis-ten critically. Critical listening is different from simple listening. Simple lis-tening is the process of hearing information and perhaps (if the speaker islucky) storing it in your mind or notes. Hearing is passive. Critical listen-ing is just what it sounds like: listening with an eye towards criticism. It isan active process of engagement with the speaker. You must be able tounderstand and evaluate your opponents’ arguments in order to respondadequately and appropriately. Good listening, like good speaking, takespractice. We learn terrible listening skills in many parts of our lives as tel-

260


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 260

261

SKILLS

evision and other media inculcate us into becoming passive receptacles ofinformation. Work on concentration skills and try to avoid “prematureevaluation” whereby you rush to judge a speaker’s intentions and argu-ments before the arguments are fully articulated.

You must learn to take notes effectively in order to succeed in debates.There are so many arguments made in the course of a given debate thateven if you have a particularly heroic and encyclopedic memory, yourchance of recalling all of them is effectively zero. You probably have exten-sive experience in taking notes, but the note-taking process in the classroomor business arena is very different from the note-taking process in debate.When you are taking notes during a lecture at your college, for example,you are trying to write down as much of what the professor says as possi-ble for later use. When you take notes in a debate, you need those notes formuch more than effective recall. You also need your them for effective refu-tation. To refute an argument effectively, you need to refer to it before yourefute it. This is the “they say…” part of the four-step refutation model.

In a debate, notes track the development of arguments. This is whywe refer to the process of taking notes in a debate as flowing. Argumentsflow (and often ebb) during the course of a debate, and refutations pileupon each other throughout speeches by both teams. For the Americanparliamentary debate format, we recommend that you use paper divid-ed into six columns, like table 1 on the next page.

Notice that we’ve put the second opposition constructive and thefirst opposition rebuttal into the same column. The proposition teammust refute the content of both speeches in the same speech, so it’spractical to put them in the same column.

Flowing is one aid that debaters use to help them practice effectiverefutation and direct clash. A flowsheet also allows us to track thearguments of the opposition so that we can answer them specificallyand in order. When you flow, you take notes in the column appropri-ate to the speech. That way, you’ll know what you need to refute whenit’s your turn to speak. When you take notes in a debate, you need tofollow a few basic precepts listed below:

Abbreviate whenever possible. Debates proceed rapidly,with remarkable density of information and argument. It is not physi-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 261

262


1st

Pro

pC

onst

ruct

ive

(1P

C)

1st

Opp

Con

stru

ctiv

e(1

OC

)

2nd

Pro

pC

onst

ruct

ive

(2P

C)

2nd

Opp

Con

stru

ctiv

e/O

pp R

ebut

tal

(2O

C/O

R)

Pro

p R

ebut

tal

(PR

)J

udge

sC

omm

ents

Table 1

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 262

263

SKILLS

cally possible for you to write everything down that is said in a givendebate. Therefore, you will have to be selective about what you chooseto write down, and abbreviate when you do. Develop a list of abbrevi-ations that works for you. Try using standard abbreviations for debateterminology – “CP” for “counterplan,” “DA” for “disadvantage,” “T”for “topicality,” etc. Use abbreviations that make sense to you. Yournotes are for your use and not for the ages.

Try to write legibly. Although your notes are primarily for yourown use, your partner may need to refer to them from time to time, soyou should try to write legibly. We have also coached several debaterswho occasionally cannot read their own handwriting. If this happensto you, take steps to correct the problem.

Don’t stop writing if you get lost. Sometimes, debaterswill get confused about what their opponent is saying or what part ofthe debate they are addressing. The appropriate response is certainlynot to stop writing, stare into the ether, or hide under the table whim-pering. Just keep taking notes, lest you miss some critical argument orexample. Woe betide the debater who loses a debate based on his orher opponent’s lack of organizational skills.

Make notations of “dropped” or “unanswered” argu-

ments. If an opponent fails to answer your critical arguments, you willbe able to tell at a glance by looking at the flow. Circle arguments thathave gone unanswered so that you will be able to point out that the otherside has effectively agreed with certain contentions you have made.

Practice routinely. You will only learn to flow well if you prac-tice. A lot. Practice flowing your classes, the evening news, radiobroadcasts, or debate meetings. Use abbreviations and try to trackargument references and refutations with arrows.

Use just one color. Although many debaters and coachesadvise flowing in multiple colors, we disagree with this practice. If youthink of something spontaneously, you should be able to jot it in the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 263

appropriate column rather than waste valuable time switching pens.

Use plenty of paper. Don’t try to cram an entire debate onto onepiece of paper. You will not only fail, but will also create a tremendousmess in the process. Use multiple pieces of paper. Many people use sepa-rate pieces of paper or separate sections of their notes to track the devel-opment of “off-case” arguments, such as counterplans or disadvantages.

Space out. Here we are not talking about the time-honored prac-tice of navel-gazing; rather, leave plenty of vertical space between indi-vidual arguments that you write down. Space ensures that your flowwill not become cramped and illegible later in the debate.

Use relational symbols to track argument develop-

ment. If you make an argument in your speech that is subsequentlyrefuted, you need to visually represent that refutation on your flow withsymbolic notation. We suggest that you use arrows. This relational nota-tion will help you with rebuttal summaries: “We said X, to which theysaid Y and Z, but Y and Z don’t really answer X, and here’s why…”

These techniques will help you take notes in any debate. However, notetaking in four-team debates is a bit of a different enterprise and requiresa different approach, as you might imagine. A judge should create a quad-rant and make notes in each of the four sections for both speakers on thatside. These notes should be used in consensus deliberation.

If you are on the opening team on either side, flow in the samemanner recommended above for two-team debating, because you areprimarily concerned with what the other side is going to say in theopening portion of the debate. If you are on the second team on eitherside, flow your debate with the other second team in the same fashion.However, also have notes about the procession of the first part of thedebate whereby you highlight and condense key arguments from thefirst team on each side so that you can reference those arguments. Wesuggest assigning numbers to the critical arguments from the first partof the debate and then referencing the reiteration of those argumentsby numbers on your flow.

264


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 264

265

SKILLS


1. Have someone read aloud each of the five sample speechesfrom the chapter on case construction and negation. Practiceflowing these speeches.

2. Practice flowing the nightly television newscast. Work to getdown as much of the delivered information as possible by devel-oping a series of issue-specific abbreviations.

Judging Debates

One of the things that distinguishes debate from simple argument isthat in debate, you are trying to persuade a third party – sometimes,many third parties, in the case of a panel of judges or an extended audi-ence. In parliamentary debates, the judge is the person who is respon-sible for deciding who wins and loses a debate. Depending on thearrangements made in any particular debate, the judge may also be thetimekeeper, moderator, or Speaker of the House. They may assign arange of points and rankings to individual debaters or teams ofdebaters. After a debate, judges will offer a reason for their decision.They will explain their decision on a paper ballot, to be distributed tothe participating teams at the conclusion of the tournament. Judgesmay also provide an oral critique after the debate, in which theyexplain their thinking as to who won the debate and offer advice andcriticism to the participating debaters.

Of course, not all debates are judged in a formal way. Manydebates are audience-oriented events, where no formal decision is everrendered or announced. When you are an audience member for anydebate, you are still, in a sense, a judge. Even if the audience doesn’tmake a formal decision, they are still evaluating the participants’ per-formance. So whether you end up judging formal, competitive, tourna-ment debates or judging debates as an audience member, you will needto know some basic skills in judging.

If you are a competitive debater, we highly recommend that you try tofind opportunities to judge debates yourself. You might volunteer to judgedebates for younger students or to referee practice debates between other

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 265

members of your squad. This experience is an invaluable teaching tool foraspiring debaters. All too often, debaters are known to while away timethat could be productively spent in any number of other ways (waxing thefamily pet, designing a marketing campaign for lawn darts, or sweatin’ tothe oldies) telling story after story about the idiocy and base incompetenceof the judges to which they have been subjected. These stories often runlike an Inquisition narrative, whereby the poor, innocent debater is tor-tured for hours on the whims of someone who is quite obviously her intel-lectual inferior. To which we can only say, “Hey, try it yourself and see howdifficult it is.” Some of the best debaters we have known have turned outto be some of the very worst judges. Some of the best judges we knownever debated or were not successful in competitions. Regardless of thehumility benefits that judging experience might provide to you, practice injudging will be a great teaching tool: It will show you what it is like to bethe Person at the Back of the Room.

Helpful advice to debaters: Respect your judges. Not only that, but goout of your way to be kind and polite to them, even when (or perhaps mostespecially) when you disagree with them. Consider that your judges arevolunteering their time or working for little pay to listen to you debate andprovide you with the most reasoned deliberation that they can muster.Without the involvement of judges, debate tournaments would certainlynot happen. That said, it is inevitable that you will encounter judges withwhom you will disagree. Your best response is to listen carefully to theirdecision and try to understand why they voted the way they did. Just aseveryone has different political and cultural opinions, everyone has differ-ent opinions about how to decide who wins and loses a debate and why. Itis not uncommon for two judges in the same debate to vote for differentsides, or to vote for the same side, but for different reasons. It is also notuncommon to be thoroughly convinced that you won a debate, only to findout afterwards that your judge disagreed with your assessment. Somedebaters treat judges as if they were only a passive receptacle for informa-tion or proselytizing, a dim view to take of judges, who should be treatedas an active participant in the debate. Just as you may educate the judgeabout certain issues, they may in turn educate you about the practice ofdebating. Keep an open mind, and above all, do not behave in a cruel orotherwise objectionable manner. That judge may judge you again, and will

266


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 266

267

SKILLS

almost certainly have some good advice that you can carry on to futuredebates. There are very few bad judges. There are, however, many judgeswith whom debaters fail to communicate. One of the reasons we learn howto debate is to communicate with a wide range of people. Learn to com-municate with your judges.

The purpose of this section is to provide advice for future and presentdebate judges. Debaters should also read this section for insights into thepractice of judging. Before we begin, we should reiterate that there are asmany ways of judging debates as there are ways of debating. Judgesshould work to cultivate their own style and method of evaluating debates.They should work with debaters, rather than in spite of them or aroundthem, to create a learning community from which all participants benefit.

When you judge a debate, you are normally asked to decide whichteam did the better debating and why. This team is said to have won thedebate, usually through a combination of argumentation and presentation.It is important to remember that the team that wins the debate may notalways be the better debate team – instead, they were the better debateteam in the debate that you watched. Even the best world-class debateteams have critical slip-ups every now and again. You should endeavor tobe fair and judge each debate based on its own merits, rather than on gos-sip, speculation, performances in past debate rounds, or other environ-mental factors.

Don’t be nervous. It is easy to be intimidated by the enterprise of judg-ing debates. You may feel unprepared or under-experienced, especiallycompared to the debaters, who may seem very professional and experi-enced. In reality, you are (no matter your experience level) perfectly pre-pared to judge a debate. Even if you have never seen a debate before, youcan still render a thoughtful and informed decision based only on yourengaged participation. Parliamentary debate is meant to be entertainingand accessible to judges and audiences of all experience levels, so even ifyou are a novice judge, you will fit right in. You will also learn to be a bet-ter judge as you watch and judge more debates. You have to start some-where, so don’t be intimidated. All you have to do is make the best deci-sion you can make. You do not have to make the “right” decision – indebate, as in politics or ice cream selection, there is seldom a “right” deci-sion per se. There are some decisions that are better for some people than

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 267

others. (For example, the authors prefer pistachio or green tea-flavored icecream. We recognize that these flavors may not go over well with others,but don’t particularly care one way or the other about that.)

Everyone recognizes, though, that some decisions are better than oth-ers. Debaters have a tendency to be opinionated. Judges are also opinion-ated. In fact, just about everyone who has had even the rudiments of a crit-ical thought (or the remnants of an incendiary talk-radio show) ferment-ing in their brain is likely to be opinionated about something. Holdingopinions is normal, healthy, and in the interest of building lively commu-nities. There is, however, a substantive difference between having opinionsand forcing them on others at the expense of reasoned debate and discus-sion. We recommend that when you judge you make an effort to maintainan open mind about the arguments and examples being evidenced in thedebate. Open-mindedness is not so much an issue of surrendering convic-tions as it is a matter of respecting the debaters’ opinions and efforts. It isimportant to remember that parliamentary debate is switch-side debating.That means that, on occasion, you may have the opportunity to watchdebaters defending a side contrary to what they (or you) might otherwiseagree with.

What do we mean when we say that some decisions are better thanothers? A good decision is one that relies on a consistent, fair method ofdeliberation. A decision is “good” not based on the outcome – we certain-ly do not mean that the quality of a decision is based on who wins and wholoses a given debate. In order to judge fairly, you need to keep a few thingsin mind:

• Identify your biases and resist them rather than surrender to them. • Apply reciprocal standards for evaluating arguments. In other words,

don’t identify an error made by one team and hold it against them whenthe other team or teams make the same error. Make your judging stan-dards relevant and fairly applied to all debate participants.

• Presume that the debaters are acting in good faith. Resist the temptationto read intention into their perceived mistakes. If a debater makes a fac-tual error in the debate, she may not know that she is wrong. Do notassume, for example, that she is being deceitful or is in some way tryingto put something over on you.

268


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 268

269

SKILLS

• Be patient. The debaters may, during the course of a given debate, do agood many things to annoy or otherwise irritate you. They are most like-ly not doing these things on purpose.

• Give debaters the benefit of the doubt about their choices – they may notmake the choices you would, but that’s okay. Debate isn’t about ego pro-jection on the part of the judge. Instead, it’s an opportunity to create arhetorical space where other bright critical thinkers can imagine, ana-lyze, and innovate. If you do not give them the benefit of the doubt, youcould end up stifling their creativity or substituting your sense of cre-ativity for theirs.

Good decisions are reached fairly with appropriate and adequate deliber-ation on the issues and arguments that are presented in the debate. Goodjudges know and follow the rules of the particular format and tournamentthey are participating in. As long as you make a concerted effort to be fairand respectful, you will quickly learn the practice of judging.

How should you conduct yourself in a debate? We have alreadyadmonished debaters that they should not treat the judge as if she weremerely a passive info-receptacle propped up at the back of the room witha pen and a ballot. Just as the debaters should conduct themselves appro-priately towards the judge, so too should you conduct yourself appropri-ately towards the debaters. The following is a list of “Don’ts” for aspiringand experienced debate judges:

• Do not talk during the debate for any reason, particularly to friendsABOUT how the debate is going. Although you are a participant in thedebate, your role should be primarily nonverbal until after it is finished.

• Do not use your debate as a “round off.” All too often, some critics whoare accustomed to judging policy debate use parliamentary debate as arespite, with consequent slovenly behavior toward the event, includingfailure to flow or painstakingly deliberate the event. This behavior isextremely disrespectful to the debaters who have carefully worked andprepared for the debate.

• Do not, particularly in international debating, penalize debaters whospeak in accents other than your own. Take into consideration that, forsome debaters, they may not be speaking in their native tongue.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 269

• Do not usurp the role of the judge for personal whim or dictatorial edict(e.g., “you must use the words ‘x, y, z’ in the course of your speeches”; or“Tell an obscene joke and I will give you 30 points”). The course and con-tent of the debate is not yours to dictate.

• Do not engage in partisan participation during the event (e.g., heckling,introducing and sustaining arguments during speeches, making points ofinformation, voting for a side based on one’s personal belief about thetopic, etc.).

• Do not arbitrarily manufacture rules (e.g., “Points of information mustbe in the form of a question,” “Parliamentary debaters are required topresent a single value or criteria (sic),” “You need to have a plan and saythe word ‘plan,’ in the Prime Minister Constructive,” “All proceduralarguments must be made in the first minute [first two minutes, first threeminutes] of the Leader of the Opposition’s constructive speech,” “Newexamples are prohibited in the rebuttal speeches.”).

• Do not write the ballot during the rebuttal speeches. This distastefulpractice conveys a total disregard for the competitors and for the integri-ty of the process. Wait until after the debate to make your decision andwait until after the debate to write the ballot.

• Do not “cut” speech time to hasten the process of the debate. Thedebaters expect and deserve the full allocation of time.

• Do not ignore the rules to suit your own preferences. For example, youmust always stop time for points of order and points of personal privi-lege.

• Do not fail to be serious about the debate. Sometimes judges will demandsimplicity (e.g., “too tired” to listen to complex argumentation; did notget involved in parliamentary debate to hear “serious argumentation;”“just entertain me”).

• Do not use marginalizing and discriminatory rhetoric or practice (anti-Semitic commentary; sexual harassment from compelled speech or judgebehavior; voting against participants for fashion, hairstyle, body pierc-ings, etc.). This rule should go without saying.

This list of “Don’ts” may seem long and foreboding, but it all boils downto a few basic precepts: Be respectful of the debaters and be fair in yourconduct and evaluation of the debate.

270


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 270

271

SKILLS

Before the debate begins, the debaters you are about to judge maywant to ask you questions about your “judging philosophy” or how youplan to judge the debate. Keep your answers brief, and try to be as instruc-tive as you can to the debaters, who are genuinely inquiring about yourdisposition towards arguments that may be advanced in the debate.Normally, this questioning time is not built into the time schedule for atournament, so don’t use a lot of time if the debaters want to talk to youbefore the debate. Avoid overly generic answers that do not provide mean-ingful information to the debaters: “I vote on the flow.” (Yes, everyone saysthat about themselves.); “Entertain me.” (Look, buddy, this isn’t Vegas);“I’m a policy maker.” (Now, if only there were consensus about what thatmeans); “Rebuttals are important.” (Well, duh.). If you can’t say anythingmeaningful, don’t say anything at all. In the USA, these pre-debate ques-tioning periods have become increasingly tedious and singularly uninfor-mative. The time would be better used after the debate as an opportunityto educate the debaters.

When you go to judge a debate, you should always bring paper andpen. We encourage you to flow the debate, i.e., take notes in the stylizedform described elsewhere in this chapter and adapted specifically to cer-tain formats of parliamentary debate. Even if you do not flow in the tradi-tional sense, you must still take notes. During the course of an averagedebate, many complex arguments are exchanged and refuted, and you willneed notes to be able to follow and resolve these arguments for yourselfand later in revealing your decision, either orally or on the ballot, to thedebaters. No matter how reliable your memory, if you don’t take notes,you risk missing some crucial example or answer that might aid in makingthe best possible decision. Good note taking will always help you decidewho wins and how to best explain your decision.

Of course, the critical question is this: How do you decide who winsthe debate? If we could offer a pithy answer to this question, we would beout peddling snake oil and certainly not laboring to produce a debate text-book. The simplest answer is that you should decide the debate based onthe criteria offered by the debaters in the round. Every debate is about dif-ferent issues, is conducted differently, and thus should be decided on itsown merits. You will have to decide whether or not the proposition teamhas made a case for endorsing the motion for debate. The opposition team

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 271

will make arguments about why the proposition team’s case is inadequateor dangerous or otherwise misguided. You will have to evaluate the mer-its of these arguments and decide whether the proposition team’s rejoin-ders are adequate and satisfactory.

During the course of the debate, debaters may offer different criteriafor your decision. They may even address you directly, saying that youshould or should not vote on a particular argument set or on certain kindof arguments. They are not trying to order you around; rather, this is com-mon practice. They are trying to assist you and influence you in your deci-sion making process.

After the debate is over, you should use a separate piece of paper tofigure out your decision. Even if you think, at the conclusion of the debate,that you know conclusively who has won and who has lost, you should stilltake some time to check your calculations and assumptions. One tech-nique that may help you is to draw up a kind of balance sheet for thedebate. List the most important arguments in the debate and then gothrough your flow to determine which side won those arguments and why.Then compare the arguments to each other.

Do not decide the debate based simply on the number of argumentswon by each side. You will also need to evaluate the qualitative signifi-cance of each argument on the overall outcome of the debate. Take thiscommon scenario: The proposition wins an advantage conclusively, whilethe opposition wins a disadvantage conclusively. Who wins? You can’tdecide based on the information we have given you. To answer this ques-tion, you need to know the relative significance of the advantage and dis-advantage. This relative significance can have both quantitative and qual-itative aspects. You may be tempted to decide based simply on the “biggestimpact.” For example, you may decide to vote for the proposition teambecause they claimed to avert a war, while the opposition team was “only”able to prove that the government team’s proposal would cause the deathsof thousands of children.

You also need to take into account questions of risk and probabilitywhen deciding who wins in complicated debates. In the above example,your decision would doubtless change if you decided, based on argumentsadvanced and won by the opposition team, that there was a very low prob-ability that the proposition team’s plan would be able to avert a war.

272


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 272

273

SKILLS

However, this does not mean that you should interject your own risk cal-culation into the debate at this point. If the debaters have weighed the roundfor you, i.e., if they have made the best case as to why their arguments out-weigh or are more important than or more instrumental to the decisionthan those of the other team, you need to take that into account.

One common mistake that judges make is voting for the oppositionteam on the basis of partial solvency arguments. A partial solvency argu-ment is an argument advanced by the opposition team that says the propo-sition team’s case will not solve the problem completely, or that the harm orexisting problem is not quite as bad as the proposition team claims it is.These are good defensive arguments for the opposition team, but theyshould almost never be reasons to vote for the opposition team. The onlything these arguments prove is that the proposition case is not as good asit was claimed to be. Big deal. It is rare indeed that arguments advancedin debates turn out to be just as triumphant as their authors predicted theywould be. The proposition team can still win if their case can be shown tobe comparatively advantageous; that is, if they can show that it is, on balance,some increment better than the present state of affairs.

Don’t vote based on your personal opinion on the topic. Sometimes,when the topic is announced, you may read it and think that you knowwhat the debate will be about. Often, the government team will choose acase that may be different from one you would have chosen. This choicedoes not mean that you should then disregard their case or use the oppo-sition’s topicality argument as a thinly veiled excuse to vote against thegovernment team’s case. You may also have strong opinions about the sub-ject matter of the topic. Perhaps you are a committed opponent of thedeath penalty and have to judge a debate about this subject. You may findthat your personal presumption lies with the team that opposes the deathpenalty, but do not hold the other team to a higher burden of proof. Theteams do not have to persuade you personally of the correctness of theirposition; the debaters are debating each other and not you.

Track arguments as they proceed and develop through the debate soyou can evaluate the debate in the fairest way possible. Some judges makethe mistake of deciding the debate more or less solely on the quality of thefinal rebuttal speech. This is a mistake because the PMR needs to be eval-uated both as a response to the opposition block’s arguments and as a sum-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 273

mation of the proposition team’s final position. When deciding the debate,you need to figure out if the PMR dropped, or failed to answer, any oppo-sition arguments. You then need to decide how to weigh those concededarguments in the context of the other arguments in the debate.

Often you will have to consider dropped, or conceded, arguments anddecide what to do about them. Some conceded arguments will not impactyour decision. Others will. If an argument is conceded, it means you mustassign the full weight of that argument to the side that argued it. This con-cession phenomenon should not mean that if a team concedes some argu-ments, they should automatically lose the debate. All arguments are notcreated equally. Some arguments can be safely ignored.

Other arguments may be introduced in the debate, only to have theteam that introduced them later back down on their original claim. This issmart debating and is not a reason to look askance at a team. For example,an opposition team may advance a topicality argument in their first speechbut not mention it again later in the debate. This behavior should be takento mean that the opposition team has decided to admit (at least for thisdebate) that the proposition team’s case is topical and concentrate their fireon other arguments. You SHOULD NOT then proceed to vote on topi-cality in this circumstance. If the opposition team has decided to drop thisargument, you should drop it as well. It is common practice for oppositionteams to argue a wider variety of arguments in their first speech than intheir subsequent speeches. This tactic is called argument selection and isgood debate practice. Do not penalize teams for not extending all of theirarguments through the entire debate.

After the debate has concluded, you will have to decide who wins thedebate and why. In American parliamentary debate, you will declare oneside the winner and the other side the loser, usually based on the contentof the arguments advanced in the debate. In international competition, youwill evaluate teams based on the matter (substance) and manner (style) oftheir presentations. The norm is to give equal weight to manner and mat-ter, meaning that the style of the presentation may actually trump a win-ning idea or a reasoned argument. When evaluating matter, judges shouldtake into consideration the key issues in the debate rather than number ofoverall issues. When evaluating manner, judges should consider the effec-tiveness of delivery associated with the winning arguments as well as use

274


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 274

275

SKILLS

of humor, use of and responses to points of information, and organizationof the speech.

In British and international competition, the judge will almost alwaysfunction as the Speaker of the House. In this role, you lead off the debatesaying something like the following: “I call the House to order to debatethe motion _______. I recognize the…” As their turns come up, you shouldrecognize speakers (first speaker for the proposition, second speaker forthe opposition, etc.). At important national and international events, youwill have the option of adding more personal information about thedebaters, such as the name of the speaker and their school. Generally, weadvise you to be a minimalist about your role.

In some international debating, there is consensus deliberation ratherthan individual decision. In this consensus process, you should make aneffort to build a genuine consensus – you may need to compromise on cer-tain issues, and you will certainly need to make an effort to respect theopinions of others. The panel of judges issues a single decision, ranking thefour teams 1st through 4th. For the purpose of tabulation, these rankingslead to point assignments – the team ranked first gets 3 points, second gets2, third gets 1, and fourth gets 0.

In addition to deciding the winners of the debate, you will have to fillout your ballot and assign points and ranks to individual debaters. Speakerpoints are a measure of performance by individual debaters. Most tourna-ments give speaker awards, which are trophies given to individuals basedon their aggregate point accumulation during the course of a tournament.Usually, you will be asked to rank the debaters on either a 30-point or 50-point scale, although there are other kinds of scales. You may choose toassign a low-point win. A low-point win is a circumstance where the teamthat won did not get the highest points. This circumstance arises occa-sionally, when judges feel that one team did the better job of speaking butdid not win based on the arguments. We suggest the following guidelinesfor using these scales:

For a 30-point scale:• 30: Almost no one should get a 30. A perfect score should happen

every few years with a really brilliant speech. • 28-29: Brilliant.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 275

• 26-27: Strong, well above average.• 25: Above average• 23-24: Modest success as a debater• Points below 23 should be reserved for people who are both unsuc-

cessful as debaters and are also obnoxious and mean-spirited.• Points should never drop below a 20, even if a debater was par-

ticularly bad. Lower points frequently exclude a debate teamfrom elimination rounds, so if you give points below 20, you aresaying that a debater has no chance of rehabilitation in anyother debates.

For a 50-point scale:

• 50: See above regarding a 30. Should be reserved for the very bestof the very best.

• 48-49: Incredibly brilliant.• 45-47: Outstanding.• 42-44: Well above average.• 38-41: Good.• 35-37: Good, but with one or more serious flaws.• 30-35: Poor performance.• Below 30: Similar to receiving points below 20. See above.

After assigning points and ranking the debaters, you will need towrite your ballot. We recommend that you use the ballot space toexplain the reasons for your decision. Why did you vote the wayyou voted? What arguments were most persuasive to you? Why?Give advice and constructive criticism to the debaters you watched.What did they do well? How could they improve their performanceor their arguments? Try to use as much of the ballot space as youcan. Debaters and their coaches save ballots, and often refer backto them as references and resources. Do not use writing the ballotas an excuse not to deliver an oral critique, however brief, to theteams that you judge. Whatever interaction you have with thedebaters after the debate will always be more valuable than thecomments you write on the ballot.

276


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 276

277

SKILLS

A final issue therefore needs to be discussed: post-debate disclo-sure. Should you, as a judge, reveal your decision and the reasons foryour decision after the debate? The norms for judge disclosure varygreatly throughout the world. For example, the first six preliminarydebates at the Worlds Championship are disclosed, while the last threeare not. Until recently, there was no disclosure at the AmericanNational Parliamentary Debate Association championship tourna-ment. We strongly support judge disclosure.

Disclosure encourages accountable and ethical decision making. Inparliamentary debate, disclosure and post-round discussion serve aneducational function. These practices offer the sole opportunity fornew critics to consider the decision-making behaviors of experiencedpractitioners. This is a golden opportunity for judge training – it is lostwhen judges do not disclose. Judges do not have a sufficient chance tolisten to peers critique a debate they have also witnessed. No space iscreated for the development of the critic’s skills. This is akin to a con-vention that would prohibit new and relatively inexperienced debatersfrom observing more experienced participants. As a new judge, youwill find that disclosure will help you learn quickly.

Furthermore, nondisclosure is not really an option: It does notexist. Judges reveal decisions at tournaments selectively – tofriends, regional teams, successful national competitors, in tradewith judges evaluating their own team despite tournament rulesand directors’ admonitions. It is not disclosure versus nondisclo-sure. The real issue is whether the community should sustain selec-tive, unequal, and unfair disclosure or support universal disclo-sure. We encourage you to disclose your decisions and discussthem with the debaters. The educational opportunity that disclo-sure affords is unparalleled.

Some object to post-debate disclosure on the grounds that there isnot enough time in tournament schedules for such interaction to occur.To this argument, we suggest that tournaments have an obligation toadjust their schedule to accommodate interaction time betweendebaters and judges. The educational benefit accrued from five ten-minute critiques by judges during the course of a day of five debates ismore than worth the investment of fifty extra minutes by the tourna-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 277

ment participants. Disclosure benefits judges, who learn and improvefrom the process. Debaters also benefit, as they get direct educationand exposure to the thoughts of their judge in ways simply not satisfiedby a written ballot.

278


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 278

279

CHAPTER 12:

TOURNAMENT

ADMINISTRATION

AND TOPIC

SELECTION

The debate tournament is an organized competition for debate teamsrepresenting academic institutions, debating clubs, language societies,or regional and national organizations. Each year, many dozens of uni-versities, debate organizations, nonprofit groups, corporations, andgovernments sponsor tournaments.

Tournament forms include select invitational tournaments, thoseevents limiting entry to a particular set of debate teams. Select invita-tional tournaments include round robin tournaments and qualifyingtournaments. Round robin tournaments are limited entry events atwhich each team debates all or most of the other competitors in thecontest. Qualifying tournaments require entering teams to pre-qualifyfor participation by demonstrating success at other tournaments,including local or regional qualifying tournaments. Some national

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 279

championship tournaments require that entering teams qualify to par-ticipate in the event.

Debate tournaments may also be instructional seminars. This typeof event is often scheduled by universities for novice participants,national and international debate organizations in conjunction withdebate and argumentation conferences, or local debating clubs orleagues at the beginning of a competitive debate season. Normally,seminars feature debater and adjudicator educational seminars, ademonstration debate, an open forum on debating art and practice, andone or two competitive debates.

The most popular tournament form is the open invitational tourna-ment, in which any eligible debate team may enter. The overwhelmingmajority of university-sponsored tournaments, as well as national andinternational championship events, are open invitational tournaments.

Expect eligibility requirements and other participation restric-tions, even at open invitational tournaments. Many national cham-pionship tournaments limit participation to debate teams from thehost country. There are academic restrictions at other events – someonly permit undergraduate college students, while other events areopen to undergraduate and graduate students. Some tournamentshave language restrictions (debates are in Russian or English, or alldebates are in the national language.) Some invitational tourna-ments prohibit hybrid team participation, meaning that teams com-prised of students from different academic institutions or debatingclubs may not enter. Other events place restrictions on participationfrom the host – some allow a host’s teams to enter the event; othersallow the host’s teams to enter the event under the conditions that ateam may not compete for awards; still others prohibit the host’steams from participating.

Tournaments may sponsor debate divisions for competitors with dif-fering skills and debate experience. Competitive tournaments may spon-sor an inter-varsity division for experienced debates, as well as a separatedivision for novice debaters. Some international events with debating inEnglish may support separate elimination round debates or champi-onship debate for participants with English as a foreign language.

Tournament hosts design events to serve competitive and edu-

280


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 280

281

TOURNAMENT ADMINISTRATION AND TOPIC SELECTION

cational needs. These goals can conflict. It is important that tour-nament hosts identify the appropriate goals for their events anddesign them accordingly. Tournament hosts should schedule events,if practicable, in cooperation with debate organizations and col-leagues to minimize conflicts and increase debating opportunitiesfor contestants.

Before the tournament

Debate tournaments may be simple affairs involving 10 to 15 debateteams and judges. They may also be very complex conferences withhundreds of competitors and additional hundreds of adjudicators andguests. Although the scope of arrangements and resources will differfrom event to event, the minimum administrative arrangements aresimilar for all tournaments. A tournament director’s responsibilitiesseldom vary, despite the change in the scope of her enterprise.

The following checklist includes the major elements of tournamentadministration and preparation:

Deciding to Host

The decision to host a debate tournament is a major undertaking for anindividual or a small group. The decision should not be made lightly.Comprehensive planning, including prospective budgeting and tourna-ment administration, ought to be completed before a public announce-ment inviting debaters and adjudicators to attend an event. It is betterto anticipate problems, bottlenecks, and conflicts prior to a decision tohost than to discover them at the time that guests are arriving at theairport, eager to participate in your tournament. Directors should, ofcourse, consider the cost of awards, ballots, staff, guest judges, siteexpenses, office supplies, food, entertainment, lodging, and miscella-neous expenses in the prospective budget.

Running a simulation of a debate tournament, including the admin-istration of the debates using tournament tabulation software, is usefulas a staff training opportunity.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 281

Announcing the Tournament

• Acquire contact information• Arrange for a date and site• Draft an invitation

The tournament director should initially acquire contact informationfor prospective attendees. Such information can come from mailinglists from debate organizations, tournament participant lists fromdirectors in the region, and addresses of debate “listservs.”

The director will need to arrange for a site and date for the event.She should coordinate a date for the tournament with local debateorganizations and colleagues in the region. Preliminary contactsregarding the tournament will reduce the likelihood that other areadebate events will be scheduled on the selected date.

The director should select the tournament site and begin prelimi-nary negotiations for access to this site on the selected tournamentdates. She should anticipate the potential number of participants andmake sure there are sufficient rooms for debates. She should makearrangements for room access (unlocking doors, etc.) and any addi-tional administrative support that might be required to manage the site.

If required, a tournament representative should contact national debateorganizations for support information and counsel and ensure compliancewith any administrative rules or guidelines for the debate events.

The tournament director should draft a letter of invitation for thetournament, including relevant details for guests. A sample tournamentinvitation letter is included in Appendix 2. The letter should be mailedto prospective attendees and debate listservs after the director managesthe administrative tasks remaining in the tournament checklist.

Information for tournament guests

• Schedule• Transportation information

282


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 282

283


• Lodging information• Meal information

Tournament guests require specific information when making a deci-sion to attend a debate tournament and facilitate transportation to andfrom the event. Guests need to know the time they should arrive anddepart the tournament. A tournament schedule is necessary for travelplanning and should include the time for the opening ceremonies, firstdebate round, and the conclusion of the championship debate.

In our experience, too many debate tournaments are unable to com-plete events on schedule. The primary reason, it seems, is the tournamentdirector’s failure to set a reasonable schedule. Judges and debaters needtime to move to and from the competition rooms. Some will get lost. If thetournament uses several buildings for the event, some individuals will getlost for each of the first two or three rounds of debate.

Judges may provide a “philosophy” or list of “preferences” prior todebates. In select debates, typically those debates for new competitors,there is a brief instructional or a question-and-answer period before theopening speech of the contest to familiarize participants with the specif-ic rules for the event. A judge or panel of judges will need time to delib-erate, privately or by consensus depending on the rules for the event,before reaching a decision and ranking the teams or listing a winner. Thejudge will take time to accurately complete a ballot for proper tabulationat the conclusion of the debate and make individual notes for speakers,offer written constructive criticism for teams, or explain the reason forthe decision on the outcome of the debate on the debate ballot.

What does this mean? It means that more time is required for eachround of debate than permitted in tournament schedules. Hosts shouldprovide a meaningful schedule to guests and design it so there is timeto adhere to it even if delays occur. Directors would be wise to add 30to 45 minutes to the schedule, particularly after the first or secondround of debate, to account for such issues as longer-than-anticipatedinstructional question-and-answer sessions, difficulties in finding com-petition rooms, and registration queues.

Tournament schedules and policies should minimize “hostage hold-ing.” In other words, a debate tournament should be designed to allow

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 283

guests to attend the event and depart as quickly as possible after theirelimination from the competition. Guests may, of course, choose toremain at a tournament for the duration of the event. Tournaments canbe enjoyable social gatherings. The event’s conviviality may encourageparticipants to continue to stay on. Many participants enjoy witnessingadditional debates, particularly the later elimination debates in whichthe top competitors engage in highly skilled exchanges. These debatescan be fine educational demonstrations for less experienced debaters,as well as sophisticated and enjoyable encounters. The choice toremain at a tournament site should be the guests’ rather than that of thetournament administration. A debate tournament should assist guestdeparture in a convenient manner, a courtesy to those who may havetraveled a distance to attend the tournament or may need to leave forany number of personal, academic, or business reasons.

A sample schedule for a debate tournament, with six preliminarydebates and four elimination rounds, might be as follows:

Friday10:00 AM – 11:00 AM Registration11:00 AM – 11:45 AM Judge Training and Seminar12:00 PM – 1:30PM Round 11:45 PM – 3:15 PM Round 23:30 PM – 5:00 PM Round 36:30 PM – 8:00 PM Round 4

Saturday8:30 AM – 10:00 AM Round 510:30 AM – 12:00 PM Round 612:30 PM – 12:45 PM Announcements, Awards, and

Elimination Rounds1:00 PM – 2:15 PM Octofinals2:30 PM – 3:45 PM Quarterfinals4:00 PM – 5:15 PM Semifinals5:30 PM – 7:00 PM Finals

This schedule, designed for a two-team parliamentary debate format,allows approximately 90 minutes for each round. It would be difficult

284


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 284

285


for the tournament to fail to meet this schedule for events. For exam-ple, a tournament debate would require 15 to 20 minutes for prepara-tion time and 40 minutes for actual competition. The schedule includesan additional 30 minutes for judge deliberation, disclosure of the deci-sion, and supplemental constructive commentary, including oral dis-cussion with debaters and the completion of a written ballot. A tour-nament design for a four-team inter-varsity tournament with nearly 60minutes of competition time might eliminate a preliminary debate andone or more elimination debates. The schedule might be:

Friday3:00 PM – 4:00 PM Registration4:00 PM – 4:45 PM Judge Training and Seminar5:00 PM – 7:00 PM Round 17:15 PM – 9:15 PM Round 2

Saturday9:00 AM – 11:00 AM Round 311:30 AM – 1:30 PM Round 42:30 PM – 4:30 PM Round 55:00 PM – 7:00 PM Semifinals7:30 PM – 9:30 PM Finals

Some directors host instructional seminars or an educational tourna-ment, which often include some competitive debates. A schedule forsuch an event, typically offered in a single day, might be the following:

Saturday8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Registration9:30 AM – 10:30 AM Demonstration Debate and

Evaluation10:45 AM – 11:30 AM Instructional Small Group

Session 111:30 AM – 1:00 PM Lunch1:00 PM – 2:30 PM Round 12:45 AM – 3:30 PM Instructional Small Group

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 285

Session 24:00 PM – 5:30 PM Round 26:00 PM – 6:30 PM Summation and Awards

In addition to schedule information, travelers will need to have infor-mation regarding any arrangements for transportation, lodging, andmeals. Tournament directors need to inform guests of the proximity ofairports, train, and bus stations, as well as the cost and preferredmethod of public transportation or taxi service from such locations tothe tournament site. They also must provide walking, driving, andparking directions for those commuting to the site. If tournament hostsare able to arrange for discounted travel options (e.g., group airlinediscounts), they should include the necessary information, such as anairline or rail service discount code, in the tournament invitation.

Many debate events negotiate a discounted rate for conference guestswith one or more local hotels. Special lodging offers should be included inthe invitation. Tournament directors should make arrangements for specialrates for dates prior to and after the tournament competition dates for thosewho need to stay extra days because of their travel arrangements.Tournaments may also offer provide “crash,” or free, housing for guests.Guests do not expect much when accepting free accommodations – it maybe a worthwhile gesture to provide them, much appreciated by those travel-ing a great distance or otherwise expending significant resources to compete.

Tournament hosts should explain what, if any, food service will beavailable at the tournament site. This information is not simply a cour-tesy, but a necessity for guests with dietary health concerns.Tournaments that provide meals to participants should consider theneeds of all attendees, making an effort to offer vegan, vegetarian, andlow-sugar options, as well as the standard full buffet for omnivores.

Tournament Operations

• Tabulating room staff• Tabulating hardware and software• Tournament office supplies• Guest judging

286


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 286

287


The tournament director should identify experienced personnel to supporttournament administrative tasks and debate tabulation. Experienced indi-viduals may be in the hosting institution or organization, but many experi-enced tournament tabulation staff and administrators are willing to provideadvice or volunteer their time to assist at other sites. It is important to havesufficient personnel to manage tournament operations, but it is of equalimportance to avoid a bloated tabulating room staff. Few things interferewith tab room efficiency more than an unwieldy and unnecessary bureau-cracy to ensure a “responsible” job for each staff person. Some tasks are notbetter managed by several individuals when a single, capable person willdo. A director should employ the minimum number of experienced or oth-erwise talented individuals for the tabulating staff.

There is tournament tabulating software for Macintosh and PCcomputers for two-team events. There is tabulating software for PCcomputers for four-team events. The software is free and available onthe Internet. Tournament directors should acquire the software that isappropriate for their computer system. The software should be down-loaded and tested several weeks before the tournament.

Tournament software needs hardware. The tournament must haveone or more computers and a printer. The tournament should haveaccess to a photocopier, if this is at all practical. The director will needto purchase office supplies for tournament operations, including largeenvelopes or folders for registration packets and ballots, pens, paper,tape, and stapler. Depending on the physical layout of the site, thetournament director may want to rent or purchase walkie-talkies (arelatively modest, one-time expense) for communication with tourna-ment staff at other buildings at the tournament site. The director andother designated personnel should have a cellular phone for emergencycommunication with guests and site personnel.

Each debate requires one or more judges. The host should antici-pate the number of judges required for the event and secure guestjudges, as many attending teams will not have judges accompanyingthem to the event. Tournament directors may also choose to limitentries to those teams with accompanying judges, if it is difficult toidentify a sufficient number of judges for the event.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 287

Tournament materials

• Registration packet• Awards• Ballots• Instructional information• Topic writing and selection

Tournaments work best when guests receive enough information to suc-cessfully navigate the physical site and the rules of the event. The tour-nament director should prepare a registration packet, which is a set ofmaterials to deliver to participants at the time of team registration. Theregistration packet should include a receipt for entry fees and othertournament costs, copies of the tournament schedule, site and area maps,lists of interesting things to do in the area (if applicable), and contactinformation for the tournament tabulating room and director.

The tournament director should purchase awards for team andindividual performers, if the tournament will present such awards.(Most events do.) The director should ensure the arrival of awards sev-eral days prior to the date of the event and examine them for defects ormissing items.

Debaters expect an accounting of their performances in an oral andwritten form. The tournament host should purchase or produce ballotsfor each judge for each round of debate. If the tournament has access toa photocopier, it is more convenient and decidedly less expensive todesign and photocopy a tournament ballot. A sample ballot is included inAppendix 2. The tournament produces photocopies of the submitted bal-lot from each judge for each of the participating teams in the debate.

The host may choose to provide documents with competitor andadjudicator information. This information may include rules for thecompetition, guidelines for judging, and recommendations for assistingin the efficient operation of the tournament.

There are different kinds of debate motions, often categorized aslimited preparation, closed and open. A limited preparation motion is

288


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 288

289


announced from several hours to several weeks prior to a tournamentdebate on the motion. Debaters are provided with some time toresearch materials and prepare arguments on the motion. A closedmotion is most easily understood as a literal statement, one that shouldengage debaters in commonly accepted and obvious terms. An openmotion describes a motion with more abstract or indirect language.

Limited preparation motion: This House would limit civil liberties to promote national security.Closed motion: This House supports China’s entry in the WTO.Open motion: This House would bury it.It is not readily apparent that a resolution might fit one, and only one,

topic category. Indeed, we believe that the distinctions among these cate-gories are more artificial than real. They are important, nevertheless,because tournament directors and judges have expectations about propo-sition team topic interpretations and arguments that are set by these cat-egories. But motions are not so easily limited to a single category. Couldthe listed limited preparation topic on restrictions on civil liberties be usedas a closed motion? Yes. Is the closed motion on China’s entry to theWTO a metaphor that might also be an example of an open motion? Yes.

A tournament director must decide which sorts of motions toinclude in the contest and the manner to position the motions in thetournament. Should the tournament offer a mix of categories? Shouldthe tournament offer a single category, e.g., only closed motions?Should the motions differ from preliminary debates to eliminationround debates? Should motion categories vary from round to round?

In a general sense, tournament directors currently try to encouragedebate on diverse topics, although this may be accomplished withoutusing more than one category of motions. It is possible, for example, topromote discussions on a broad range of substantive issues and useonly closed motions for debate.

A tournament host should consider the skills, experiences, andexpectations of participants, as well as the purposes of the event. Thesefactors will influence the selection of the categories of motions, as wellas the wording of specific topics for debate. A host may decide to offera variety of topic categories at the event. The host might, for example,provide six preliminary rounds of debate, selecting two each of limited

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 289

preparation, closed, and open motions. The tournament director, in this circumstance, can use the two

motions from the same category in following debates, beginning withthe odd-numbered debate round. This format is not complicated and isparticularly easy to execute in two-team debates. (It is a bit problem-atic in four-team rounds of debate but by no means impossible.) Intournament contests with an even number of preliminary debates, eachteam ought to debate the same number of proposition and oppositiondebates. In a tournament with six preliminary rounds, each debateteam would debate three times as the proposition and three times as theopposition. In an odd-numbered debate, a team could debate on theproposition side or the opposition side. For example, in the first roundof debating, half the entering teams would be assigned to the proposi-tion and they would be matched with opposition teams. In the even-numbered rounds, the teams switch sides. The opposition teams debateon the proposition and the proposition teams debate on the opposition.This cycle is repeated in each pair of debates in the preliminarydebates, beginning with the odd-numbered round of debate.

If the categories of motions are matched to the debate rounds in whicheach debate team will argue both the proposition and opposition sides,participants are more likely to consider that the contest is fair. Each team,in the example, would appreciate the opportunity to debate both theproposition and opposition sides of limited preparation, closed, and openmotions. If the tournament director placed a limited preparation motion inthe first and third debates, rather than the first and second debates, it islikely that some teams would debate twice on the proposition or the oppo-sition on this sort of motion. If limited preparation time provides an advan-tage to one side of the debate, it may be the case that the director’s place-ment of categories of motions in debate rounds has given an unfair advan-tage to the some teams in the tournament.

Some tournament directors might choose a single motion category forthe entire event. A tournament organized at the time of a national election,for example, might select a series of limited preparation topics on electionreform or the salient issues of candidates’ or political parties’ policies.

It may be the case that some tournament hosts might select a cer-tain type of motion for the championship or grand final debate (so

290


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 290

291


selected, for example, for a large public or broadcast audience availableto watch the final tournament debate). It may be necessary to promotethe event with an announcement of a specific topic or a topic area. Inthis circumstance, the director might use a limited preparation motionor closed motion. These motions might “preview” the topic for target-ed demographic groups likely to attend or view the debate.

There are, of course, a number of debate tournaments with an oddnumber of preliminary debates. If this is the case, the tournamentdirector should reserve her most equitable or balanced motion for thelast debate, as that will be the debate that will create an imbalance ofargument sides for the contest. This final preliminary debate, in anodd-numbered round, will mean that teams debate more rounds oneither the proposition or the opposition side.

Are there guides to the creation of effective resolutions for debate?Yes and no. There are guides that seem commonsensical. The motionought to be interesting. It should a matter in controversy (i.e., oneshould know that the matter is debatable). Participants should havesome knowledge of the topic or the ideas and arguments suggested byit. The motion should be clearly worded. In most instances, the topicshould be affirmatively, rather than negatively worded. It is better toavoid topics that begin “This House would not…” If the tournamentincludes participants from more than one country, the director shouldselect some topics that transcend or encourage debate about bound-aries (geographic, cultural, economic, etc.).

These and similar guides, or aspirations, might be satisfying (“I wanttopics that produce roughly equal arguments for the adversaries,” “I wantmotions that will inspire an audience or cause it to swoon,” “I want top-ics that will produce rigorous and challenging debate”) but these arerather abstract and unhelpful critical guides and almost impossible to con-sistently use as standards for generating and constructing topic ideas. Forexample, the more one thinks about the issue of those matters that makea good resolution, the more one produces standards for constructingviable motions. The more standards for topic wording are generated, themore desirable it appears to apply the standards. The more one tries toapply multiple standards for evaluating a topic, the less likely it becomesthat any topic will pass muster. It is something of a paradox.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 291

Much of the criticism of debating motions, and much of the admirationfor motions, appears as ex post facto commentary on debate. If a debateinvolves sophisticated, challenging argumentation and refutation,expressed in a clever or entertaining manner, the participants and observersconstruct the topic as “good.” If the debate is shallow and unappealing, themotion is to blame – it is a “bad” motion. These claims are self-serving andhave little to do with honest assessment of motions. If motions producedebate or should produce debate (and that is all that we can reasonablyexpect of them), we should consider them satisfactory. If they suspenddebate, and a few motions do, they are inappropriate.

We offer a simple guide for writing a motion: Regardless of the catego-ry of the motion, keep the wording of the topic simple and direct. There isn’tenough preparation time prior to a debate for participants to figure or imag-ine the inner workings of the topic author’s peculiarities and psychoses.Debaters should be able to take any motion and immediately (or within theallotted preparation time) begin to work the idea. In addition, it isn’t nec-essary to force the hand of participants by including complex informationin the actual motion for debate. The debaters will generate complex ideasfrom basically worded motions. They need to do so. This is the way theyare more likely to win the debate.

In addition, simply worded motions provide due consideration to thoseparticipants debating in a second or third language. They assist novice orspeech-apprehensive debaters, who are likely to be anxious about publicspeaking or the format and do not need to be confounded by the motion.

Crafting a “simply worded motion” still requires time and care. Itmay not be so simple to design the motion with the quality of “simplic-ity.” (The simple is not so simple. There you have it. A poorly wordedmotion.) It is in the interest of a tournament director or topic designerto consider, from several perspectives (which may involve speaking toothers about these matters, unless one prefers a schizophrenic or intel-lectually chaotic approach to idea formation), how debates will occuron the finished topics. There is a context for producing debate motions.The purpose of the motion is to promote debate. If experienced practi-tioners have considerable difficulty understanding the motion orapplying interpretations of it to the context of a debate in a few min-utes, the care, simplicity, investment of research and time, and other

292


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 292

293


favorable features of the topic design method lose their relevance. Thetopic does not work and it should not be considered.

This difficulty is not a reason to permanently discard debate on themotion. There are extraordinarily worthwhile ideas that ought to beincluded in parliamentary debate tournaments that do not fit a ready, one-size-fits-all topic formula. It may be the case that the topic language mustbe carefully customized prior to its use in tournament debates. It mayrequire testing in public or practice debates to begin working out the dif-ficulties in its construction. The motion could then be used in later events.

Here is an important, perhaps urgent, note: Motions should bedesigned well in advance of the actual tournament date. Well inadvance. They should be shared with other experienced topic authorsfor critical review and editing. In addition, the director should draftmore motions than required by the number of rounds for the event.The director should, quite obviously, draft at least as many motions asthe number of rounds of debate. There are circumstances in which fast-changing national and world events may moot selected topics. Otherdebate tournaments may use some of the topics that you considered.An announced limited preparation topic for a subsequent tournamentmay affect your decision to use the same idea for extemporaneousargument training. It is sound to have several additional motions inappropriate categories available as substitutes for the ones that mightbe pre-selected for the tournament.

It can be argued, however, that categories of motions, as well as thewording of the motions themselves, are different from the substance,core elements, or “heart,” of the debate. It isn’t the case that apprecia-tion of the motion carries the day. Few debates are won or lost whenthe motion is announced. Rather, debates are won on reasoning, evi-dence, and the persuasive skills of participants engaged in sophisticat-ed argument on diverse issues related to the topic’s interpretation.After all, any topic interpretation begets a host of argument matters fora debate. It is these subsequently revealed issues, not the language ofthe motion itself, on which the outcome of a debate ultimately rests.

Topic categories and wording choices may influence the outcome ofdebates and may set performance expectations for the contestants, but thematter of which side does the better debating or convincingly wins the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 293

arguments might still be decisively resolved on other issues. Topic selec-tion, wording, and placement of motions in particular rounds of a debatecontest are important matters. These issues, however, will not inevitablyalter the outcome of the majority of contest debates. The wording of top-ics is often a source of complaint for participants, but its influence in theoutcome of debates is exaggerated. Of more importance is the ability ofdebaters to craft a discrete, convincing, and reasonable interpretation ofa given motion. Interpretive and argument skills matter more than topiclanguage choices by tournament directors.

Ancillary Information

• Last-minute travel information• Harassment and legal information• Videotaping and broadcast preparation• Confirmations

The host should update travelers with weather and travel information,particularly if transit delays or inclement weather are likely.

The host should provide any organizational legal informationregarding access for differently abled people or harassment policy.Tournament hosts should provide access to the site and support serv-ices for differently abled individuals (for example, individuals withimpaired hearing or in wheelchairs) and, in a number of cases, may berequired by law to provide relevant accommodations. The host shouldhave available information regarding sexual and other harassment andshould have a policy in place in the event of a harassment report. Onceagain, this information may be required by national debate organiza-tions, leagues, or by applicable local or national laws.

The tournament director should consider the legal implications oftournament management, including applicable ethics codes for aca-demic institutions and national organizations, tax requirements, andlabor policies. For example, some tournament directors accept person-al checks, made payable to them as individuals, as payment for regis-tering teams. This may be an acceptable practice if the tournament is aprivate profit-making operation by the tournament director, for which

294


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 294

295


the tournament director accepts sole liability. If, however, the directoris an employee or representative of an institution, the director mayhave a different relationship with the tournament. When the tourna-ment is sponsored by an academic institution, accepting personalchecks may be a violation of university policy. The university hosts andsponsors the event as a university conference program and expects rev-enue to be directed to the treasurer’s office and general fund.Accepting personal checks made payable to the director may require atournament director to declare the payments as income, subject to localand national taxes. Payments to guest judges and tabulation staff, doneprivately (“off the books”), may violate tax and labor policy. Theseissues are important considerations for directors, who may face seriouspersonal and legal liability for failure to manage what may be theequivalent of many thousands of dollars in tournament payments.

The tournament host may choose to arrange to videotape debatesor provide live Internet streaming of selected rounds. These plansshould be completed well in advance of the tournament and severaltests of audio/visual equipment or Internet configurations and connec-tions should be completed by the date of the tournament. If appropri-ate, the tournament should provide appropriate waivers for individualsappearing on video or in broadcasts.

Prior to the tournament, the director should confirm all arrangementsfor the event. Guests should receive confirmation of their successful admis-sion. Tournament service and support – room access, dining services, enter-tainment, etc. — should be confirmed. Efficient and timely planning will notmatter much if there is a last minute error or oversight. It is best to check allthe elements of successful tournament operations before guests arrive.

During the tournament

The management of a debate tournament is a surprisingly uncompli-cated affair if the host has completed the “before the tournament”tasks. Events ought to follow each other according to schedule.Experienced staff ought to be available to assist with difficulties.Tournament directors need to prepare for unlikely or untoward events.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 295

• Opening Events• Registration• Instructional sessions

The tournament director should prepare an orientation session tobegin the event. This session may consist of documents supplied to par-ticipants at tournament registration, a video presentation, or an open-ing meeting. The orientation should include rules for the event, sched-ules, maps, and other resources to facilitate participation and avoidtournament delays. The documents or opening session may alsoinclude instructional information for debaters and judges.

Instructional information may include demonstration debates, semi-nars, training sessions, and support materials. Some contestants mayhave not participated in debates or in the particular debate format priorto the tournament. A seminar is an opportunity to assist participatingdebaters in understanding the intricacies of the rules and conventions ofdebate practice. It is also an opportunity to provide judge information,instruction, and testing. This sort of judge training will both informjudges of practice standards for the tournament and also set consistentstandards in deliberations and evaluations of debater performances.

Tournament Operations

• Announcements• Tabulations

• Services: Meals, lodging, entertainment, awards• Troubleshooting

The director should select a conveniently located common area for thepublic distribution of any announcements. Information that will beused throughout the tournament, e.g., an event schedule or directionsto debate rooms, should be posted. Contact information for problems,as well as the location of the tabulating room, should be posted. Thesite should serve as a gathering place for tournament participants.Judges should secure and return ballots to this area.

The director should decide on a manner to announce each motion

296


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 296

297


for debate. There are several popular forms, including a single commonannouncement, the private announcement by a judge or speaker, andthe selection of the motion by the participants.

Many tournaments have a single public announcement of themotion for each round of debate. Tournament participants gather in acommon area at an appointed time and the director of the event or arepresentative of the tournament-tabulating staff makes an announce-ment of the motion. Typically, participants have approximately 15 to 20minutes from the time of the announcement to the start of the debate.

Each tournament sets its own policy regarding preparation timebetween the announcement of the topic and the beginning of eachdebate. A sensible rule is that each team should have a minimum of 15minutes to prepare for debates. If it requires five minutes to walk fromthe common announcement area to the furthest debating room, thetournament should provide 20 minutes of preparation time (15 minutes+ a five-minute walk to the debate site). This time frame provides alldebaters a satisfactory minimum preparation time.

Other tournaments attach a copy of the motion to the debate bal-lot that judges receive prior to debates. After the teams and judgearrive at their assigned room, the judge announces the motion and theteams have 15 minutes to prepare for the debate.

Another form of topic announcement, for two-team debates uses asimilar ballot attachment.. The attachment to the ballot, however, hasthree motions for debate. The proposition team is able to strike ordelete one of the motions from consideration and the opposition teamis permitted to strike a second of the three motions. The remainingmotion is the used for the debate. Each team is allowed approximatelyone minute to make its choice of a topic strike and preparation timebegins after the second topic is struck from consideration.

The results of debates are collected by the tournament administra-tion and used to tabulate tournament results on a round-by-roundbasis. Tabulating software is available to assist this task. There are, inmany regions of the world, persons with experience with tabulatingsoftware. If the tournament director or selected staff is not familiarwith tournament tabulation methods or software, the director shouldidentify one or more individuals to serve as tabulation directors or con-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 297

sultants. This procedure should ensure no problems or unnecessarydelays in tournament operations. Quite obviously, accurate recordingof the results of a competition is essential to its purpose and of greatimportance to guests, and the director need to pay considerable atten-tion to this element of tournament administration.

After the announcement of the each preliminary debate, a memberof the tournament staff should post the results of the debate tourna-ment to that point. Tabulating software will produce the team recordsof each team in the contest. An alphabetical or rank order listing of theteams should be posted in a common area.

A public posting of the tournament results allows teams to verifythe accuracy of tabulating room results. Debate teams are able to con-firm the announced decision at the conclusion of the debate with theposted version by the tournament staff. Publicly posting resultsdecreases the likelihood of tabulating room error and may avoid a seri-ous matter, namely, the inadvertent exclusion of a qualifying team fromthe elimination round debates. It is also a convenient way to dissemi-nate information to participants. After all, the results of each debate arehardly the proprietary information for the tournament tabulating staff.In fact, there is no reason for the tabulating room to have access to thisinformation, other than to determine the appropriate debate pairingsfor following round of debate.

The director must coordinate any receptions, meals, awards presen-tations, or other gatherings during the tournament. The host should pre-pare any speeches or announcements for these events well in advance.The director must have contact information for caterers, organizers, orother support staff for social events. Tournament staff should be assignedto manage these events, if necessary, as the tournament director may beinvolved with other matters at the time. All preparations for social andcultural events, awards, guest lodging, etc., should be confirmed withorganizers and vendors prior to the date of the tournament.

The best planning will not necessarily guarantee a problem-freetournament. Inclement weather, hotel and catering company errors,locked classrooms or debating chambers, an insufficient number ofjudges, computer tabulating hardware and software difficulties, andmore can disrupt an otherwise well-planned event. We have several

298


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 298

299


suggestions for tournament directors and staff. These suggestions willnot necessarily prevent problems but might assist in their amelioration.

In addition to posting event and contact information and providingguests with it in their registration materials, and having cellular tele-phones for staff communications, as previously suggested, the tourna-ment host should appoint an assistant tournament director, with thefull authority to make decisions regarding tournament operations, inthe event that serious difficulties occur at the same time and the direc-tor must attend to one of them.

The tournament should maintain a troubleshooting desk or makeother arrangements for guest services. This part of tournament opera-tions assists participants with legitimate but relatively minor concerns(i.e., those concerns that do not affect overall operations), includingdirections to debating rooms, lost and found items, schedule informa-tion, notes on dining options in the area, etc.

After the tournament

Documentation

• Ballots and tabulation results• Tournament Information• Review and evaluation

The tournament host should collect the ballots from each for the prelimi-nary and elimination round debates. Staff should organize and place bal-lots for each team or academic institution in folders or envelopes andmake them available to guests at the point that guests are eliminated fromthe event. The tournament director should ensure that complete tabula-tion and awards results are included in each folder.

The tournament may choose to post the results of the contest on debatelistservs and Websites. Full information for individual and team results maybe e-mailed to listservs or forwarded to Website administrators. Somedebate leagues or national organizations require that tournament results beforwarded to their offices for inclusion in national rankings for annualawards. The tournament director should promptly and completely deliver

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 299

tournament tabulation results or a list of award recipients, as required. The director should also post the motions used during the tourna-

ment to debate listservs and Websites. A topic list is an outstandingresource for competitors unable to participate in the contest. It providesa set of topics for practice debating. It familiarizes debaters with the issuesconsidered controversial and appropriate for academic debates. It pre-vents the duplication of motions at subsequent tournaments.

One of the important functions of tournament administration is toestablish an institutional history of the event. As a guide for colleagues,an efficient reference for the administration of future events, and ameans to coordinate event publicity, a comprehensive tournamentevaluation is a valued asset.

The director should prepare a comprehensive review of the tourna-ment, including files of all invitations and announcements, schedules, sup-port documentation, tabulation results, topics, and award recipients. Thedirector should evaluate the event to anticipate her needs for subsequenttournaments and to provide a documentary history of tournament admin-istration that will be available to future directors.

Publicity and Conclusion

The tournament staff should promote its successful administration.Publicity may include press announcements to local and nationalmedia, broadcast of videotaped debates or tournament excerpts on theInternet, and announcements of future events to debate Websites andlistservs. The tournament director should contact local media prior tothe competition and be ready to provide written promotional materialsor conduct interviews during the tournament.

The director has a final task, namely, to thank those individualsand institutions providing tournament support. A personal note, refer-ence letter, Internet announcement, or thank-you on a Website shouldsuffice to graciously commend the efforts of others, many of whomundoubtedly volunteered considerable time and skill to the endeavor.

300


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 300

301

APPENDIX I

SAMPLE

PARLIAMENTARY

TOPICS

All of the topics included below are actual topics that have been used in tournamentcompetitions, both nationally and internationally, over the course of several years. Inthis list, you will find topics of all kinds. Some topics are better than others, accordingto the guidelines we set out in Chapter 12. Some of these motions are closed or rela-tively closed, while some are open or relatively open. Some topics are metaphorical oridiomatic, and may thus be difficult for non-native English speakers. Other topics arespecific to the internal affairs of particular nations, but can be easily modified to fit theneeds of your nation or community.

This list can be an effective tool for teaching and practice. Debaters should usethe topics for preparation – a good exercise would be to pick a few topics at a time and,for each topic, generate case ideas and topic interpretations linking the case to themotion. Teachers, trainers, and coaches should use the list to provide practice topicsfor their students. They may also choose to use topics from this list for tournaments orother kinds of scrimmages among debaters or debate squads. The most important func-tion of this list, however, is that it serves to show the wide range of parliamentarydebate topics.

This House believes that 'the power to tax is the power to destroy.’ (Justice JohnMarshall).

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 301

302


OPEN MOTIONS

This House would reject con-sensus.

This House would put pragma-tism before its principles.

This House would heal thewound.

This House would rather be inthan out.

This House would break thelaw.

This House supports thestrong state.

Resistance is not futile.

This House would contem-plate rather than act.

This House would mind thebusiness of others.

The messenger should beshot.

This House believes that theEmperor is wearing noclothes.

This House should investigatethe investigators.

This House would milk thecow dry.

This House would catch ‘emall!

This House would be apathet-ic.

This House believes that thebuck stops here.

That radical change is superiorto incremental change.

This House would send theboy home.

The journey of a thousandmiles begins with one step.

This House has got somenerve.

This House would walk thecatwalk.

This House believes that once

you start you can’t stop.

This House believes thatpeace is undesirable.

This House approves of politi-cal inertia.

This House believes in orderto get it you have to give itup.

This House believes love isfoolish.

This House prefers secondplace to first.

This House would open itsdoors.

This House believes that thelight at the end of the tunnelis an oncoming train.

This House would stop usingcosmetics.

This House would expose thesecrets.

This House would pull theplug.

This House would defend elit-ism.

This House would redistributethe wealth.

This House should recycle.

This House believes that goodthings come to those whowait.

This House believes that lifeimitates art.

This House believes you canjudge a book by its cover.

This house believes that festi-vals are superior to competi-tions.

This House should pull theplug.

This House should teach anold dog a new trick.

This House should considercarefully that which seemsinitially successful.

This House should announcethat the King is naked.

This House should check itsmessages.

This House should change itslocks.

How you play the game oughtto be more important thanwinning the game.

When they say it’s not aboutthe money, it’s about themoney.

The House would still the fireswithin.

This House would develop astrategy rather than a theo-ry.

This House prefers coopera-tion to competition.

This House would hunt themdown to the ends of theearth.

This House would rejectdogma.

This House would rock theboat.

This House would balance thebooks.

This House believes the cus-tomer is always right.

Dramatic failure is more usefulthan mild success.

This House believes thatsilence means consent.

This House believes that infor-mation wants to be free.

This House believes that thelocal is preferable to theglobal.

This House should balance itsdiet.

This House would lock itsdoors.

If at first you don’t succeed,quit.

This House should embrace

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 302

303

APPENDIX I: PARLIAMENTARY TOPICS

Adults must respect children.

This House believes that it’stime for a change.

This House believes in thedevolution of power.

This House would remainanonymous.

This House would break thelaw in the interests of jus-tice.

This House would break a badlaw.

This House would let them in.

This House supports civil dis-obedience.

This House believes that theend justifies the means.

Resolved: Actions speak loud-er than words.

This House believes in thegreatest good for the great-est number.

This House would stick to itsprinciples.

This House believes in Rightand Wrong.

This House needs a nannystate.

This House would legislate,not liberate.

This House believes that divid-ed we stand, united we fall.

The carrot is more effectivethan the stick.

This House would put an “X”in the center square.

This House would meet cruel-ty with kindness.

This House would reject biggovernment.

This House would rather bepublic than private.

We don’t believe that imitationis flattery.

Only the lives of the mighty

have value in this world.

The power of one is strongerthan the power of many.

Obedience to authority is anexcuse for cowardice.

True courage is demonstratedthrough passive resistance.

The conflict that occurs withinis as complex painful as theconflict that occurs without.

This House would throw cau-tion to the wind.

This House would live outsidethe law.

This House would privatize it.

This House would rather bebeautiful than clever.

This House rejects a cost-ben-efit analysis.

This House would not vouchfor vouchers.

This House doesn’t believethese politicians.

Ignoring the fringe is betterthan engaging it.

This House believes that child-hood is more important thanadulthood.

This House would removegovernment from the livesof the people.

This House believes applesand oranges make strangebedfellows.

Be it resolved that needs ofthe many outweigh theneeds of the few.

This House should grease thewheels of justice.

This House believes that thereare necessary illusions.

This House would repeat themistakes of the past.

This House believes that for-tune favors the foolish.

This House believes that it isbetter to be a middle of theroader.

This House believes that thepeople are wrong.

This House believes that wehave never had it so good.

This House would let themajority rule.

This House believes in free-dom from fear.

This House prefers justice topopularity.

This House expects theSpanish Inquisition.

This House should be a spiritu-al House.

This House should be a virtualHouse.

This House would supportgridlock.

This House is in contempt ofthe court.

This House would assist thosewho wish to die.

The grass grows greener onthe other side.

This House believes in the sur-vival of the fittest.

This House should save thefamily farm.

This House should resist thetyranny of principle.

Regulate the regulators.

This House should break thelaw.

This House would encouragesaving our green.

This House believes it is betterto stand alone.

This House would test itstires.

This House is sad, cold andlonely.

This House calls for grants,

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 303

304


not loans.

This House would bring backthe rope.

This House will not survive.

This House would thwart thewill of the majority.

This House should hide thetruth.

This House would rage againstthe machine.

This House believes the pen inmightier than the sword.

Be it resolved that mightmakes right.

This House believes that thereought to be a law.

Corporate power has gonetoo far.

This House would burn the vil-lage to save it.

This House believes thatfanaticism works.

This House believes that thetruth is out there.

This House believes that oldenemies can become newfriends.

Resolved: This House believesthere is no blank slate.

This House would boldly gowhere no House has gonebefore.

This House would rather be atortoise than a hare.

This House would ratherexplode than implode.

This House believes that whatcosts little is of little worth.

This House would root for theunderdog.

This House would watch theskies.

This House would watch thewatchers.

This House would assassinate

its enemies.

This House would defend elit-ism.

This House believes in paintingthe town red.

This House would cry overspilt milk.

This House would return therelics.

This House would repair thedamage.

This House would not standby her man.

This House would centralize.

This House would steal thebeggar’s tin cup.

This House would check it out.

This House believes thatprogress is a myth.

This House would blame soci-ety.

This House would do thesalsa.

This House should be forcedto give up its vices.

This House would find thetruth.

This House should forgive andforget.

This House would rather beEast than West.

TAXATION

Wealthy people’s taxes shouldbe raised and poor people’staxes should be lowered.

This House would use taxationto regulate behavior.

This House should replace thefederal income tax with afederal sales tax.

Citizens should not be forcedto pay taxes to finance

Social Security.

The government should befinanced exclusively by vol-untary contributions.

Citizens should be taxed tofinance public education.

You can spend your ownmoney more wisely than thegovernment.

This House would give sub-stantial tax relief to preventa recession.

This House supports a flat tax.

This House would cut taxes.

In certain circumstances, aconscientious objection topaying taxes is justified.

This House would abolishdirect taxation.

This House believes that taxa-tion is theft.

This House believes that a fair-er society needs higher tax-ation.

This House believes that lowtaxes are preferable toextensive government serv-ice.

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUS-TICE

A victim’s deliberate use ofdeadly force is justified as aresponse to domesticabuse.

In the criminal justice system,truth-seeking ought to takeprecedence over the rightsof the accused.

This House believes in trial byjury.

The rights of the victim oughtto take precedence over therights of the accused.

This House would legalize

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 304

305


its feminine side.

This House believes that it ismore important to give thanit is to receive.

This House would give it up.

This House would eliminatethe subsidy.

Be it resolved that it is betterto lead than to follow.

The loophole should beclosed.

You don’t need a weathermanto know which way the windblows.

This House believes in compe-tition.

This House believes that thewhole is greater than thesum of its parts.

This House would make it upas we go along.

The ray of hope is a blindinglight.

Just chill.

It is time to fish, or cut bait.

This House would upset thebalance.

This House would turn thetables.

This House would follow themto the ends of the earth.

This House would unhitch thetrailer.

This house would gamble on adark horse.

This House would blow it up.

This House believes in the sur-vival of the fittest.

People should be accountablefor their own rescues.

Apathy is more problematicthan obedience.

This House believes that weshould merge into one lane.

This House would repudiatepatriotism.

This House would repudiatehistory.

This House would free theprisoners.

This House believes thatdeception is necessary.

This House would let the peo-ple decide.

This House would fail until itsucceeds.

It is better to be safe than tobe sorry.

This House believes there areno boundaries but our own.

This House would sell to thehighest bidder.

This House would blow stuffup.

This House would spend it.

Bury it.

This house would raise thebar.

This House believes thatthose who destroy shouldrebuild.

This House would tradeswords for plowshares.

Resolved: that payments arealways unbalanced.

You should build a fencearound your house.

This House believes that it isbest to stay parked than tojump on the accelerator.

This House would seek a sim-pler way.

No justice, no peace…

This House would seek a sin-ister way.

This House would hold itshorses.

This House would go to theother extreme.

This House would come out ofthe closet.

This House would add fuel tothe fire.

Embarrassment is the bestteacher.

Freedom from is better thanfreedom to.

There is no place for personalprivilege.

Good riddance to the secondmillennium.

Railings only stop the foolish.

Resolved: You sell the sizzlenot the steak.

This House would be guidedby the youth.

This House prefers restraint toactivism.

Resolved: Love is over-rated.

This House would bring backthe boot camp.

Resolved: Silence is violence.

Resolved: that what goes upmust come down.

Resolved: that the secret ofsuccess is that there is nosecret of success.

This House would break theglass ceiling.

This house believes that 9 outof 10 doctors are wrong.

High fences make good neigh-bors.

This House believes that theends do not justify themeans.

This House believes that theblind are leading the blind.

This House believes that theend is near.

Justice delayed is justicedenied.

This House believes that gold

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 305

306


is not cold.

This House believes in magic.

This House would comfort theafflicted and afflict the com-fortable.

This House believes that azebra doesn’t change itsspots.

This House would rather bepoor than rich.

Cleanliness is not next to god-liness

This House would plan theperfect wedding.

This House supports the cul-ture of openness.

This House would name thembut not shame them.

This House would walk in asacred manner.

This House would become agreat mountain.

This House should increaseaccess to information.

This House regrets devolution.

This House would uproot thecedar.

This House would rebalancethe powers.

Speed bumps are a failure ofroad planning.

Liberty is more precious thanlaw.

This House would put out thefire.

This House believes you can’thandle the truth.

This House believes that welldone is better than wellsaid.

This House would heed itspriests.

Science fiction will become

science fact.

This House would take a walkon the wild side.

Resolved: If the thunder does-n’t get you, the lightning will.

This House needs a miracle.

This House should break thesilence.

This House would respond.

This House would get downand dirty.

This House would embracethe contradiction

This House would put the fatcats on a diet.

This House would have zerotolerance.

This House would rage againstthe machine.

This House would drop out.

This House believes that chari-ty begins at home.

This House says “Anarchyrules.”

When in conflict, this housewould rather be cheap thaneasy.

This House believes in playingfavorites.

This House would go home.

Finish the job.

Give legitimacy to the union.

Our trust is misplaced.

Oops, this House did it again.

This House would sleep withthe enemy.

This House would revisit the1970’s.

This House would reach forthe stars.

This House would removegovernment from the livesof the people.

This House would repudiate

history.

The fact that most peoplethink something is true,makes it true.

Something can be true in the-ory but not in practice

Sometimes it is morally cor-rect to be dishonest.

This House should spoil itschildren.

This House would smoke acigar.

Resolved: The trend towardcentrist politics is desirable.

This House would reveal itssecrets.

This House believes that Godis a comedian.

This House would shred itsdocuments.

In this instance, family mem-bers should exercise toughlove.

This House believes thatShakespeare was right.

Resolved: Let it be.

This House believes thatchange is not progress.

This House will seek forgive-ness later rather than per-mission now.

This House respects its eld-ers.

This House believes in tradi-tions.

This house prefers great tasteto less filling.

This house would push thebutton.

This house believes that greedis good.

It is time to throw off theshackles of tradition.

This House would look to thepast, not to the future.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 306

307


prostitution.

The system of justice, in thisHouse, should be retribu-tive, not distributive.

This House would imposemandatory sentences forrepeat offenders.

This House believes in “Threestrikes and you’re out”

This House would lock ‘em upand throw away the key.

This House believes that theJapanese governmentshould allow trials to bebroadcast on television.

This House opposes the deathpenalty.

A swifter and more probablepunishment of crime wouldreduce crime rates.

Sodomy and prostitutionbetween consenting adultsshould be legal.

It should be legal to requirecriminal defendants to testi-fy in their trials.

This House believes thatcrimes should have victims.

This House would eliminatedue process of law.

This House believes that civillitigation should have thesame requirements as crimi-nal litigation.

That the means of police inter-rogation are less importantthat the ends.

This House should limit thetype of evidence admissiblein courts.

This House would discontinuefederal control of state pris-ons.

Resolved: This House believesrewards work better thanpunishments.

Be it resolved: Due process is

overrated.

This House believes that con-victed rapists are as bad asmurderers and should besent to prison for life.

Illegally obtained evidenceshould not be admissible ina criminal trial.

This House favors retributionover rehabilitation.

This House would limit theoption of litigation.

This House believes thatjudges should be elected.

This House would chemicallycastrate sex offenders.

This House would publicize thewhereabouts of sex offend-ers.

This House would put cam-eras in the courtroom.

Resolved: That law enforce-ment agencies should begiven greater freedom in theinvestigation and prosecu-tion of crime.

This House would televisecriminal trials.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should substan-tially change rules and/orstatues governing criminalprocedure in

federal courts in one or moreof the following areas: pretri-al detention, sentencing.

This House believes that jus-tice should be blind.

Resolved: Violent juvenileoffenders ought to be treat-ed as adults in the criminaljustice system.

This House would crack downon petty crimes.

This House would extraditecriminals to face the deathpenalty

This House believes that rapevictims’ sexual historyshould be admissible incourt

This House wouldn’t trust ajury.

This House should alter thesystem of jury selection.

This House should take atougher stance toward crimi-nals.

DRUG POLICY

This House would legalize alldrugs.

This House believes that thedrug war is a civil war.

This House believes that thewar on drugs is inadvisablein a free society.

This House would legalize softdrugs.

This House would legalize harddrugs.

This House believes that thewar on drugs is misdirected.

This House would ban all alco-holic drinks.

RELIGION

This House believes in theseparation of church andstate.

This House would ordainhomosexuals.

This House would tax religiousinstitutions.

This House believes that reli-gion is, and should be, apolitical force.

This House believes that reli-gion and politics don’t mix.

This House calls for a repre-sentative clergy.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 307

308


Resolved: that God isn’t play-ing an important enough rolein modern life.

This House believes religion isthe opiate of the masses.

This House believes in theexistence of God.

POLITICAL SYSTEMS ANDPHILOSOPHIES

This House believes that onlythe elite can truly success-fully manage national affairs.

This House believes in paci-fism.

This House would use propor-tional representation todecide national elections.

This House would use force tomake peace.

This House believes thatdemocracy is a sham.

This House believes a busi-nessman makes a goodPresident.

Resident non-citizens shouldbe given the right to vote.

Special interest groups havetoo much influence in elec-tions.

The government should takeone or more actions tomake it easier for citizens tovote.

The voting age should be setat 16.

This House would require thatall candidates participate inmandatory, nationally tele-vised debates in presidentialelections.

This House would adopt s sys-tem of compulsory votingfor all citizens.

This House prefers meritocra-

cy to democracy.

Public campaign tactics shouldbe limited in one or moreways.

This House believes that thereare better alternatives todemocracy.

This House believes that politi-cians have come nowheresince Machiavelli.

This House believes that poli-tics is inherently dishonor-able.

This House believes statepower is more importantthan federal power.

This House would prefer anar-chy to oppression.

This House believes that thestate has a duty to protectindividuals from themselves.

This House would be commu-nist.

This House would giveMarxism another try.

This House favors a parliamen-tary form of government.

This House believes thatstrong dictatorship is betterthan weak democracy.

This House would reform thepresent system of checksand balances.

This House believes that oneman’s terrorist is anotherman’s freedom fighter.

This House believes that theright wing is dead wrong.

This House would support asix-year presidential term ofoffice.

This House believes that thePresident was a victim.

This House believes a consti-tution is only as good asthose who enforce it.

This House believes that therecan be no justice wherelaws are absolute.

This House believes an unjustgovernment is better thanno government at all.

Resolved: That politiciansshould be forgiven whenleaving office.

This House has high hopes forthird parties.

Be it resolved that the govern-ment that governs leastgoverns best.

This House would reform thenational campaign process.

This House believes the deci-sions of the court shouldreflect the values of thepeople.

This House prefers honestrepresentation to puredemocracy.

This House believes that thejudiciary should be popularlyelected.

Resolved: That the power ofthe Presidency should besignificantly curtailed.

The only proper function ofgovernment is to defend theindividual rights of its citi-zens.

Resolved: that politics shouldbe about the citizens andnot the parties.

This House regards royalty asirrelevant.

This House believes that thegovernment has forgottenits role.

This House supports cam-paign finance reform.

This House demands fully rep-resentative government.

This House would rather havea president than a monarch.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 308

309


This House believes that thestate should fund all politicalparties.

This House would ban all pri-vate donations to politicalparties.

This House calls for more useof the referendum.

This House believes that truedemocracy is direct democ-racy.

This House believes that nega-tive political advertising issignificantly detrimental tothe democratic process.

This House believes that thepublic deserves the politi-cians it elects.

This House regrets the rise ofcareer politicians.

This House believes that vot-ing should be compulsory.

This House believes that it’s acrime not to vote.

This House believes in libertar-ian government.

This House believes that vio-lence by the people is theresult of oppression by thestate.

This House supports politicaladvertising.

This House would reject theprofessional politician.

This House believes that thereis a better way to elect thepresident.

This House opposes patriot-ism.

This House believes in termlimits for federal officials.

This House believes in directdemocracy.

This House should reform thepolitical process.

This House would limit the

cost of election campaigns.

This House believes in thetwo-party system.

PRIVACY AND INDIVIDUALRIGHTS

This House believes danger isthe price of liberty.

This House believes that theright to die is the ultimatepersonal freedom.

This House believes that theright to privacy is moreimportant than the freedomof the press.

This House demands a bill ofrights.

This House would codify itsrights.

This House believes in theconcept of intellectual prop-erty.

The public’s right to know out-weighs the individual’s rightto privacy.

This House believes that free-dom has been taken too farin the western world.

Resolved: That greater con-trols should be imposed onthe gathering and utilizationof information about citizensby government agencies.

This House believes in theright to die.

This House would introduce aNational Identity Card.

This House believes the rightto privacy has gone too far.

This House believes that therights of the oppressedshould be less importantthan the rights of theoppressors.

This House believes that secu-

rity is more important thanfreedom.

This House believes that per-sonal liberty must berestricted to reduce thethreat of domestic terrorism.

The protection of public safetyjustifies random drug test-ing.

The public’s right to know is ofgreater value than a candi-date’s right of privacy.

Resolved: that drug testing inthe workplace should beabolished.

This House believes that pressfreedom should be restrict-ed to protect the privacy ofpublic figures.

This House would restrict theliberty of people in order toprevent harm to their health.

PHILOSOPHY

Freedom of the individual is amyth.

Resolved: This House believesdualism should be brokendown.

It is possible to identify truths.

This House rejects all forms ofviolence.

Human beings’ interests arenecessarily in conflict.

This House believes that it isnever right to take a life.

This House believes there isno such thing as a winnablewar.

This House believes inabsolute Truth.

This House deplores utilitarian-ism.

This House rejects a prioritruth.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 309

310


This House believes that con-ventionality is not morality.

This House values life over lib-erty.

When in conflict, individualrights take precedence overgovernment rights.

Materialism will lead to thedownfall of humanity.

This House believes that theends do not justify themeans.

Violence is an appropriateexpression for the silenced.

This House believes that sub-stance is more importantthan philosophy.

Human beings are fundamen-tally good.

Natural instincts prevail overintellectual actions.

Humans have no free will.

This House believes that skep-ticism has replaced ideolo-gy.

This House believes thathumanity was born for coop-eration, not competition.

This House believes that Platowas right.

The fact that most peoplebelieve something is goodmakes it good.

Moral principles should bebased on the requirementsof human life, not command-ments.

This House would re-thinkpostmodernism.

This House believes that col-lectivism is better than indi-vidualism.

This House believes that thereis no justice without retribu-tion.

When called upon by one’s

government, individuals aremorally obligated to risktheir lives.

Community standards are ofgreater value than individualliberty.

Laws that protect individualsfrom themselves are justi-fied.

Reality is a linguistic construc-tion.

This House supports radicalfeminism.

This House believes that thegood life is best measuredby aesthetics.

This House regrets the declineof conventional morality.

EQUALITY AND SOCIALJUSTICE

This House would requireprospective human parentsto be licensed before havingchildren.

This House would privatize thepension problem.

This House would address theconcerns of an aging popu-lation.

The government should makereparations to black people,and other abused minorities.

This House believes that femi-nism has devalued parent-hood.

This House believes that thebattle of the sexes is farfrom over.

This House would allow homo-sexual couples to adopt chil-dren.

_________ is the best way toprotect rights of homosexu-als.

The state should make inroadsinto parental rights.

This House would give moneyto beggars.

This House believes that chari-ty begins with the homeless.

This House would help beg-gars become choosers.

Be it resolved that welfare beavailable only to personsover the age of 21.

Be it resolved that communityservice be a requirement ofwelfare payment.

This House would supportpositive discrimination.

Social responsibility should becompulsory.

Housing should be a basichuman right.

That the courts and legislaturehave overreacted to sexualharassment in the work-place.

The government should moreactively protect the rights ofpersons with disabilities.

This House would end the waron poverty.

Be it resolved: The federalgovernment ought to enacta policy to promote multicul-turalism.

This House would reform thewelfare system.

This House would support rad-ical redistribution.

This House would give theyoung a voice.

This House believes that thereis no such thing as universalhuman rights.

This House believes thatsocial injustice justifies politi-cal violence.

This House believes that a

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 310

311


common culture is ofgreater value than a pluralis-tic culture.

The Women’s Movement hasdone more harm than good.

This House supports same-sex marriage.

This nation should pay repara-tions for violating the humanrights of its people.

This House would relax immi-gration laws.

This House would introducehiring quotas.

This House believes that capi-talism is detrimental tosocial justice.

This House believes that the‘melting pot’ has failed.

This House would hold the mil-itary to a stricter standardon sexual harassment.

This House would put thoseon welfare to work.

This House would ration theold to nurture the young.

This House believes thatracists should be account-able for the consequencesof their doctrines.

This House would spend lesson the police and more onthe people.

The west should treat state-sponsored sexism asapartheid.

This House believes that thegovernment must place thehuman interest above thenational interest.

This House believes that spe-cial interests have ruineddemocracy.

This House believes that com-passion should be boundedby fiscal necessity.

This House would end all clas-

sification by race.

This House would speakEnglish.

This House would allow same-sex couples to adopt chil-dren.

This House would advocatecolor-blind justice.

The federal governmentshould enact a policy torestrict entitlement pro-grams.

This House deplores classwarfare.

This House believes that thecommunity is more impor-tant than the individual.

This House would pay a par-ent for staying home.

This House would reframe theurban future.

This House would establish ayouth policy.

This House would place privi-lege before merit.

This House would restrict therights of immigrants.

Resolved: that peace and jus-tice are two sides of thesame coin.

That violence and progressivedissent ought to be mutuallyexclusive.

The safety net should bemended.

This House would supportexpanded legal protectionsfor homosexuals.

This House believes in socialunity over cultural diversity.

This House would adopt asuperior alternative to affir-mative action.

This House would adopt quo-tas.

This House believes that

social welfare is the respon-sibility of local governments.

That political and legal equivo-cation of Judeo Christianmarriage with civil marriageis unjustified.

This House believes thatequality is the benchmark ofsociety.

This House would politely say“No” to reparations.

This House should close itsborders.

This House supports openborders.

This House believes that goodhealth is a human right.

This House believes that thebest man for the job is awoman.

All citizens should be treatedequally by the law regard-less of race; affirmativeaction is wrong.

The government should redis-tribute wealth by taxingsome citizens in order toprovide goods or servicesto others.

The law discriminates againstwomen and treats themworse than men.

This House believes that fami-ly values are over-rated.

Resolved: that affirmativeaction should focus onclass, not race.

This House opposes affirma-tive action.

This House believes that thescales of justice are tilted.

This House would supportexceptions to gender equali-ty in the workplace.

This House supports discrimi-nation.

Women have fewer legal and

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 311

312


cultural advantages thanmen in our society.

This House would soak therich.

This House would hold peopleresponsible for the actionsof their ancestors.

This House would open thegates to immigrants.

This House believes thathumanity is created equal.

Peaceful and healthy immi-grants should be allowed tocross the border freely.

Toleration is a virtue.

This House believes thatracism can be controlled bylegislation.

This House believes specialprotection creates specialproblems.

This House would means-teststate benefits.

This House would abolish thewelfare state.

This House believes the wel-fare state is a right, not asafety net.

Affirmative action should beused to even out differ-ences between the sexes.

This House believes thatminority privileges denyequality.

LABOR AND ECONOMICPOLICY

This House believes thatrenewed strength of labororganizations is necessaryfor a progressive economy.

This House calls for a manda-tory retirement age.

This House believes in therestraint of commerce.

This House believes that thegovernment should regulatethe economy.

This House would increaseconsumer protection.

This House believes thataccountants are to blame.

It is better to stimulate theeconomy through tax cutsthan through increasedspending.

That House believes that weshould subsidize traditionalindustries.

This House believes that multi-nationals are the new impe-rialists.

Capitalism is an immoral eco-nomic system.

Reducing federal spending rel-ative to GDP would createmore prosperity.

This House would stabilize gasprices.

The government should subsi-dize some businesses andfarms.

This House hates capitalism.

This House would increasepartnerships between gov-ernment and private enter-prise.

This House would establish aliving wage.

Capitalism is the only ethicaleconomic system.

This House would increase theminimum wage.

This House would promoteinfrastructure development.

Resolved: That the govern-ment should nationalize thebasic nonagricultural indus-tries.

The recent mega-mergers ofmedia companies will help

competition more than theywill hinder it.

This House would return to anunregulated free market.

This House regrets globaliza-tion.

This House supports the rightto work.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should signifi-cantly strengthen the guar-antee of consumer productsafety required

of manufacturers.

This House believes that glob-al capitalism degrades com-munity.

This House believes that theright to strike should begiven to all employees.

Wages should be raised 15percent.

Small organizations are able toadapt to today’s businessenvironment better thanlarge organizations.

This House believes youshould invest in foreign mar-kets.

That the work week should beshortened to 30 hours.

Enron reveals capitalism’smoral bankruptcy.

This House believes in eco-nomic competition.

This House would end corpo-rate welfare.

This House would re-national-ize the public utilities.

This House would increasetaxes on the rich.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should estab-lish a national program ofpublic work for the unem-ployed.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 312

313


Resolved: That the federalgovernment should guaran-tee a minimum annual cashincome to all citizens.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should adopt aprogram of compulsorywage and price controls.

This House would break upeconomic power.

This House would resurrectcommunism.

This House would increaseconsumer protections.

The significance of consumerconfidence has been over-rated.

This House would stop thefree exchange of currencies.

This House would get out ofthe stock market.

This House believes thatequality and capitalism areincompatible.

This House would save thesurplus.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should adopt apermanent program of wageand price control.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should imple-ment a program guarantee-ing employment opportuni-ties for all citizens in thelabor force.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should signifi-cantly curtail the powers ofthe labor unions.

Resolved: That the nonagricul-tural industries should guar-antee their employees anannual wage.

Resolved: That the require-ment of membership in alabor organization as a con-dition of employment should

be illegal.

Resolved: That labor organiza-tions should be under thejurisdiction of anti-trust legis-lation.

This House would hold tobac-co companies liable for theconsequences of their prod-ucts.

This House would set a maxi-mum limit on salaries.

This House would bail out fail-ing industries.

This House believes that tradeunions must modernize ordie.

This House believes in supply-side economics.

Resolved: Labor should begiven a direct share in themanagement of industry.

This House believes that theright to strike should begiven to all employees.

This House supports thepower of labor unions.

This House believes that laborunions have outlived theirusefulness.

ARTS AND LITERATURE

This House believes that pub-lic monies should notfinance art.

This House believes art is theessence of a nation’s char-acter.

Art is unnecessary for humanprogress.

This House believes in poeticlicense.

This House would let the lan-guage die.

This House would pay to go toa museum.

This House would allow thedepiction of erect penises inart and film.

This House would abolishstate funding of the arts.

Art is like a shark, it mustmove forward or it will die.

This nation should have an offi-cial language.

Art is permitted, but nature isforbidden..

This House would establishEnglish as the official lan-guage.

FREE SPEECH

Political correctness is thenew McCarthyism.

This House believes any bookworth banning is a bookworth reading.

Communities ought to havethe right to suppresspornography.

This House believes that cen-sorship can never be justi-fied.

This House would ban prison-ers publishing accounts oftheir crimes.

This House supports LarryFlynt.

Be it resolved: Hate speechought to be banned.

This House believes thatmoney is speech.

This House would give racistsa platform.

This House would support aconstitutional amendment toprotect the flag from dese-cration.

The protection of domesticorder justifies restrictions onfree speech.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 313

314


This House believes the pressis too free.

Be it resolved that censorshipof television, film and videomaterials be increased.

This House believes thatobscenity is expression.

This House believes that politi-cal correctness has gonetoo far.

This House believes that politi-cal correctness is necessaryto achieve social justice.

This House would be politicallycorrect.

This House would legalize alladult pornography.

This House believes that a banon flag burning betterserves fascism than free-dom.

Resolved: that the govern-ment should take a moreactive stance protecting freespeech.

Resolved: When they conflict,respect for cultural sensitivi-ty ought to be valued abovecommercial use of freespeech.

Resolved: A journalist’s rightto shield confidentialsources ought to be pro-tected by the FirstAmendment.

This House would restrict freespeech.

TRADE POLICY

Be it resolved that the GATTsystem of international gov-ernance should be signifi-cantly revised.

The West will regret freetrade.

This House will regret thetrade bloc.

This House believes the WTOis a friend of the developingworld.

This House believes that traderights should be linked tohuman rights.

This House would expandNAFTA.

This House believes thatNAFTA is a mistake.

That on balance, free tradebenefits more than it costs.

This House would restrict non-tariff barriers.

This House would pass fast-track authority.

Resolved: Something needsto be done about the WTO.

People are better off with tar-iffs than with complete free-trade today.

This House rejects the multilat-eral agreement on invest-ment.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRSAND POLICIES

This House would test nuclearweapons.

This House believes thatindustrialization assuresprogress in the developingworld.

In international relations, eco-nomic power is preferred tomilitary power.

This House would rebuild theBerlin Wall.

This House should adopt amore moderate stancetoward Iran.

Resolved: That the govern-ment should substantiallyincrease its security assis-tance to one or more of the

following: Egypt, Israel,Jordan, Palestinian NationalAuthority, Syria.

Resolved: That this nation’sforeign policy toward one ormore African nations shouldbe substantially changed.

This House should apologizefor its imperialistic past.

This House should end its for-eign military operations.

This House believes thatdeveloping nations needstrong dictatorship.

That supporting indigenousefforts at independence ismore important thanrespecting state sovereign-ty.

This House would expandpopulation control measuresin India

This House would be morerealistic about humanitarianintervention by our militaryforces.

Let the world police itself.

Test nuclear weapons.

This House would end theembargo with Cuba.

This House supports aPalestinian state.

This House would end uncon-ditional aid to Israel.

This House would substantiallyreduce IMF and World Banklending programs.

The debt of the third worldshould be forgiven.

This House believes that thepoverty of the Third World isthe fault of the First World.

This House has no business inBosnia.

This House believes that theUN has failed.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 314

315


India should engage in politicaldiscourse rather thanincreasing their weaponry.

This House would eliminatethe veto power of theUnited Nations SecurityCouncil.

It is time to shun Arafat.Iranshould not be consideredpart of the “Axis ofEvil.”Tony Blair shouldreceive the Nobel PeacePrize.

This House believes we don’tneed Europe.

This House believes that theUN is a toothless watchdog.

This House would give the UNa standing army.

This House would reject a unit-ed Europe.

This House would give land forpeace.

This House believes that theinternational communityshould start a dialogue withthe Front for the IslamicSalvation of

Algeria.

The Chemical WeaponsConvention should not beratified.

All foreign aid should be pri-vately funded.

This House should enact amore aggressive foreign pol-icy.

This House regrets humanitari-an intervention.

This House fears China.

This House would end thearms trade.

This House believes thatdemocracy is so good,everyone should be madeto have it.

This House believes that childlabor is justifiable in thedeveloping world.

This House would invade inthe interests of democracy.

This House believes that theassassination of dictators isjustifiable.

Resolved: The possession ofnuclear weapons is immoral.

Resolved: The intervention ofone nation in the domesticaffairs of another nation ismorally justified.

This House fears Islamic fun-damentalism.

Romania should b admitted tothe European Union.

Romania should be admittedto NATO.

Protection of human rights jus-tifies the use of militaryforce.

This House supports theestablishment of an interna-tional criminal court.

This House would ban allnuclear weapons.

This House believes in theright of any country todefend itself with nuclearweapons.

This House believes that eco-nomic sanctions do moreharm than good.

This House would always pre-fer sanctions to war.

This House believes that ter-rorism is sometimes justifi-able.

This House would take stepsto substantially reducenuclear proliferation.

Further debt relief for develop-ing nations is needed

This House would negotiatewith terrorists.

What steps should the UNtake to stop civil unrest inAfrica?

This House believes war to bean unjustified response toaggression.

Yugoslavia is not dead.

This House condemns the UNembargo of Iraq.

This House would makeamends for the legacy ofcolonialism.

Sweden should abolish itsmonarchy and become arepublic.

This House prefers isolation-ism to interventionism.

Resolved: That the furtherdevelopment of nuclearweapons should be prohibit-ed by international agree-ment.

Resolved: That the non-com-munist nations of the worldshould establish an econom-ic community.

This House believes that mak-ing Arafat a partner in peacewas a mistake

This House believes politicalassassinations are a legiti-mate tool of foreign policy.

This house favors limiting oursupport of Israel.

This house would shift its for-eign policy focus to thewestern hemisphere.

This House would overridenational sovereignty to pro-tect human rights.

This House should significantlycurtail military aid to Israel.

The United Nations Chartershould be substantiallychanged.

This House would expandNATO.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 315

316


Resolved: The federal govern-ment should substantiallyincrease its security assis-tance to one or more of thefollowing Southeast Asiannations: Brunei,Burma(Myanmar),Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos,Malaysia, Philippines,Singapore, Thailand,Vietnam.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should substan-tially increase its develop-ment assistance, includingincreasing government togovernment assistance,within the Greater Horn ofAfrica.

Be it resolved that a perma-nent United Nations militaryforce be established.

Be it resolved that internation-al sanctions against Serbiabe lifted.

Be it resolved that all eastEuropean countries beadmitted into NATO.

Be it resolved that theOrganization of AmericanStates should establish aregional drug interdiction mil-itary force to halt

the flow of drugs in theWestern Hemisphere.

On to Baghdad.

Adios, Latin America.

The United Nations shouldmandate and enforce anIsraeli-Palestinian settle-ment.

This House would substantiallyincrease population assis-tance in foreign aid pro-grams.

This House would end financialaid to foreign nations.

This House would support aPax Americana.

Nationalism stands in the wayof peace.

That carrots are better thansticks in foreign policy.

Resolved: A federal world gov-ernment should be estab-lished.

Resolved: That the non-com-munist nations should forma new international organiza-tion.

Globalization is a masqueradefor cultural imperialism.

This House would support theindependence of Quebec.

This House should act againstpolitical oppression in thePeople’s Republic of China.

Sanctions will help the peace.

This House would eliminateslavery in Africa.

This House believes that thefirst world owes more to thethird world than the thirdworld owes to the firstworld.

This House believes thatincreased relations withChina would be detrimental.

This House would intervene inChechnya.

This House believes that inter-national conflict is desirable.

It is immoral to use economicsanctions to achieve foreignpolicy goals.

This House would use eco-nomic sanctions to enforcea ban on nuclear weaponstesting.

This House believes that theUN is dysfunctional.

The possession of nuclearweapons is immoral.

This House welcomes a bor-derless world.

This House calls for a NewWorld Order.

This House believes in theright of indigenous peoplesto self-determination.

This House would rather liveon a desert island than inthe global village.

This House believes thathuman rights are a tool ofWestern foreign policy.

This House believes that aid tothe Third World should betied to human rights.

This House would manageethnic conflict in CentralAsia.

This House values humanrights over state sovereign-ty.

This House would take policyaction to support Kurdishself-determination.

Interference in the internalaffairs of other countries isjustified.

This House believes thatOkinawa should be inde-pendent.

This House would increasesupport for the developingworld.

This House would uniteIreland.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYAND PHILOSOPHY

This House would substantiallyrestrict visitors to theNational Parks.

This House believes that thevalue of natural resourcescan be found only in theirexploitation.

Be it resolved that the use of

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 316

317


animals for public entertain-ment (zoos, circus acts,etc.) be illegal.

This House would restrict pri-vate car ownership.

Old growth forests should belogged.

This House believes that thelives of animals should notbe subordinate to the rightsof humankind.

Be it resolved that all forestland that currently exists asnatural habitat remain so.

This House would ban allexperimentation on animals.

This House believes that meatis murder.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should adopt acomprehensive program tocontrol land use.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should controlthe supply and utilization ofenergy.

This House would free the ani-mals.

This House believes that wehave no more right to riskthe health of animals than ofhumans.

This House believes that ani-mals have rights too.

This House would break thelaw to protect the rights ofanimals.

This House would ban huntingwith hounds.

Privatizing all unused federalpublic land is a good protec-tion for the environment.

Technology should be utilizedto solve ecological prob-lems.

This House believes that thevalue of natural resources is

found in their exploitation.

When in conflict, This Housevalues environmental pro-tection over economicgrowth.

High petrol prices are a goodthing.

Sustainability is just a conceptthat assuages our con-sciences while we continueconsuming at the same rate.

Sustainability is not an achiev-able goal.

Sustainable developmentmeans a decrease in ourstandard of living.

This House would act deci-sively to stop global warm-ing.

This House believes that thegovernment should takemeasures to substantiallyimprove natural disasterrelief.

This House believes that theexploitation of animals isimmoral.

Resolved: that vast areas ofwestern lands currentlyunder the jurisdiction of theBureau of LandManagement (and

administered as “multiple use”areas) be reclassified as“wilderness areas” in whichmining, grazing, etc. wouldnot be

permitted.

Resolved: that the federal gov-ernment allocate publicmonies to protect or pur-chase sufficient lands in themidwestern region of theU.S.A. to ensure the sur-vival of all forest-nestingsongbird populations.

Resolved: that genetic materialfrom other subspecies or

even other species shouldbe used to save endan-gered populations

like Red Wolves and FloridaPanthers.

Resolved: that the federal gov-ernment should greatlyreduce the land area avail-able for livestock grazing inthe western

states, and instead managesuch lands for nativespecies.

Resolved: that the federal gov-ernment should develop aplan to restore patterns ofwater flow in the ColoradoRiver to

more closely approximatethose that occurred beforeconstruction of the GlenCanyon, Hoover, Davis,Parker, Imperial, and LagunaDams, and to implementthat plan by 2050.

Resolved: that the U.S. shouldbegin immediately to phase-in measures to reduce therate of increase in atmos-pheric CO2 concentration.

Resolved: that populations ofGray Wolves established byrecent introduction intoYellowstone National Parkand central Idaho beremoved on the justificationthat they are genetically dis-tinct from populations natu-ral there and therefore notprotected under theEndangered Species Act.

Resolved: that the federal andFlorida state governmentsshould act to restore thewater flow pattern to theeverglades ecosystem thatwas characteristic beforemodern water diversion proj-ects began.

Resolved: that the federal gov-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 317

318


ernment should develop andimplement a plan to reestab-lish the native fish fauna ofthe Great Lakes, includingthe removal of exoticspecies (e.g., ZebraMussels, Sea Lampreysand Round Gobies) current-ly established in the lakes.

The government should sub-stantially reduce oil imports.

Resolved: that the importation,breeding, cultivation, andsale of all exotic organismsbe prohibited in the UnitedStates of America, includingthose not native to theUnited States of Americaoverall as well as those notnative in a particular area ofthe country. Exemptionscould be allowed for particu-lar species necessary forbiological control of already-established exotics, or forother human uses deemedto be of critical importance.

Rolling blackouts are prefer-able to environmental degra-dation.

This House supports the inter-national trading of pollutionpermits.

Resolved: that the NationalPark Service should developand implement a policy oflimiting visitors to NationalParks at a level consistentwith maintaining the integrityof the parks’ natural com-munities and critical ecosys-tem functions.

Resolved: that the federal gov-ernment take all necessarysteps to prevent the intro-duction of the brown treesnake (Boiga ) to theHawaiian Islands, includingstrict inspection of all ship-

ping, passenger luggage,etc.

Non-human species deservegreater protection.

This House would grant per-sonhood rights to primates.

Resolved: that the develop-ment of all commercial prod-ucts that make use of bio-logical resources originatingon public lands will includenegotiations with the appro-priate government agencyfor payment of reasonableroyalties to the public.Biological resources shallinclude all organisms, partsof organisms, and specificproducts of those organ-isms, including enzymes,hormones, etc.

Environmental pollutiondemands a truly globalresponse.

This house would save thedams, not the salmon.

Resolved: that the federal gov-ernment should redirect itsprotection efforts to focuson areas identified as unpro-tected biodiversity“hotspots” by GAP analy-sis.

This House would save thetropics.

This House would substantiallyreform farming.

This house believes anthro-pocentrism is necessary.

Resolved: that the federal gov-ernment act immediately toconsolidate formerPresident Clinton’s designa-tion of 58.5 million acres ofNational Forest lands asroadless areas off-limits tologging and mining, and notto reverse that designation.Resolved: that the federal

government act to prohibitthe killing of bison that leaveYellowstone National Parkand enter private lands.

Federal courts should grantstanding to animals to pur-sue their rights.

This House believes the envi-ronment can hold its own.

This House believes thatnature is more importantthan unemployment.

This House would go forth andstop multiplying.

This House calls for increasedpopulation control.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should increaseregulations requiring indus-tries to substantially

decrease the domestic emis-sion and/or production ofenvironmental pollutants.

This House would subsidizeagriculture.

Overpopulation is the world’sgreatest threat.

This House believes that theKyoto Summit didn’t go farenough.

This House believes that glob-al warming is the biggestinternational crisis.

This House would put theenvironment before eco-nomics.

This House would recycleenvironmentalists.

This House would protect thelesser species.

This House believes spaceshipearth is crashing.

Global warming will create cat-astrophic effects within 30years.

This House would privatizenational parks.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 318

319


POPULAR CULTURE

This House believes Americanculture places too great anemphasis on athletic suc-cess.

This House has an unhealthyobsession with sport.

Baseball is better than soccer.

This nation has sacrificed aes-thetics for convenience.

This House should oppose theOlympics.

This House is resolved thatthere should be integrationof the sexes in professionalsports.

This House believes that weresemble the Simpsonsmore then the Waltons.

This House believes that dogsare better pets forhumankind than cats.

This House believes ourobsession with celebrities isharmful.

The piercing of body parts(except earlobes) should beprohibited for anyone under18.

This house would save theTwins.

This House believes that it isbetter for athletes to retireat the peak of their careers.

This House believes that thereis too much money in sport.

This House applauds theOlympic ideal.

This House believes that inter-national sport is warfarewithout weapons.

This House would blameHollywood for the ills ofsociety.

This House supports a nation-al lottery.

This House would ban boxing.

This House would ban allblood sports.

This house believes the SuperBowl ain’t that super.

This House condemns gam-bling of all forms.

This House believes that beau-ty pageants for childrenshould be banned.

This House believes that fash-ion enslaves and oppresseswomen.

This House would restrict themovement of professionalsports franchises.

This House laments the dedi-cated follower of fashion.

This House believes that theadvertising industry causesbody fascism.

This House believes thatadvertising is poison to soci-ety.

This House condemns thepaparazzi.

Be it resolved that drug testingbe compulsory for all ath-letes involved in national andinternational competition.

This House would ban alltobacco advertising.

This House prefers Sega toShakespeare.

This House believes that pub-lic funding of sports facilitiesis immoral.

Parents ought not purchasewar toys for their children.

This House believes thatmusic is more influentialthan literature.

This House would pay its col-lege athletes.

State-run lotteries are undesir-able.

This House believes thatmotion pictures are a reflec-tion of society norms.

This House prefers countrymusic to classical music.

This House believes that vio-lence has no place in enter-tainment.

This House would end its par-ticipation in the OlympicGames.

This House would shut downHollywood.

This House believes that pro-fessional athletes are paidtoo much.

This House believes that it isacceptable to “out” gaycelebrities.

This House believes that com-mercialism has gone too far.

This House believes that thecontinued production ofsport utility vehicles is unde-sirable.

This House believes thatadvertising degrades thequality of life.

MEDIA AND TELEVISION

This House believes that tele-vision destroys lives.

This House believes that jour-nalistic integrity is dead.

This House believes that tele-vision is more significantthan the computer.

This House believes that themedia has gone too far.

The media are corrupt.

This House believes that thenews should be interestingrather than important.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 319

320


This House supports domesticcontent quotas in broadcast-ing.

This House believes that themedia has become too pow-erful.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should signifi-cantly strengthen the regula-tion of mass media commu-nication.

Be it resolved that television isthe major cause ofincreased violence in oursociety.

This House believes reportersshould report not affect thenews.

This House would hold themedia responsible.

It is proper for the governmentto own the TV and radio air-waves.

This House would televiseexecutions.

This House believes that thestate should have no role inbroadcasting.

This House would turn off theTV.

Resolved: that, on balance, tel-evision has done more harmthan good.

This House believes the mediashould tone it down.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

This House would leave theplanet.

This House thinks that Internet“junk mail” should be illegal.

The ethical cost of sellinghuman eggs outweigh thepotential benefits.

When in conflict, this Housevalues scientific discoveryover the welfare of animals.

Science is more dangerousthan religion.

This House would censor theInternet.

This House calls for furtheruse of nuclear power.

This House believes that sci-ence is a menace to civiliza-tion.

This House believes that themarch of science has gonetoo far.

This House believes that sci-ence has nothing to regret,not even the ruins ofHiroshima.

This House fears theInformation Age.

This House believes that med-ical technology has out-stripped morality.

Resolved that alternative ener-gy sources replace nuclearpower.

Resolved that the use ofantibiotics should be signifi-cantly limited.

Resolved that genetic testingon human fetuses should beprohibited.

The federal governmentshould significantly restrictresearch and developmentof one or more technolo-gies.

This house would clonehumans.

This House believes thatresearch should berestrained by morality.

This House believes thatspace travel should be priva-tized.

This House believes that you

should keep your genes toyourself.

This House should regulateon-line gambling.

This House would fear tech-nology.

Resolved: Technology dehu-manizes.

This House would ban geneticcloning.

This House believes comput-ers are the answer.

This House would go tospace.

This House would deleteMicrosoft.

This House ought to put itsdesigner genes back in thecloset.

That on balance, resourcesspent on space explorationwould be better used ifdirected toward the explo-ration of earth.

This House would let the infor-mation superhighway runfree.

This House calls for universalgenetic screening.

This House would expandstem cell research.

This House would choose itsbabies.

This House believes that thebenefits of genetic engineer-ing outweighs its risks.

This House believes that theinternet is the new opiate ofthe masses.

All software must be shippedwith the source code.

This House would reduceapplied research for basicresearch.

This House would ban geneticscreening.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 320

321


This House would test every-one for HIV.

This House would patrol theinformation superhighway.

Computers contribute to soci-ety’s moral decline.

Internet e-commerce will ulti-mately fail.

Space research and develop-ment should be significantlycurtailed.

This House believes that tech-nology is killing our workethic.

Resolved: The Internet shouldbe funded by governmentsubsidies, as opposed toprivate investment.

Resolved: The growth of e-business is a benefit to theaverage small company.

Resolved: The benefits oftelecommuting outweigh thenegatives.

Resolved: It is unethical forcompanies to track individu-als’ use of the Web withouttheir knowledge.

That schools should use filter-ing software to prevent chil-dren from viewing restrictedmaterial on the Internet.

Genetically engineered food isthe answer to feeding theworld.

Xenotransplantation is thesolution to the shortage oforgans for transplantation.

Opposition to human cloningis based on ignorance ratherthan insight.

This House would buy everychild a computer.

The Internet needs to be regu-lated.

Engineering is an art, not a sci-ence.

Internet security is an oxy-moron.

Planned obsolescence is nec-essary for technologicalprogress.

This House believes thatspace exploration and devel-opment should be an inter-national priority.

EDUCATION POLICY

This House believes that thestudents should run theschool.

This House believes that pub-lic schools should foregofreedom for safety.

This House rejects distancelearning in higher education.

This House believes that phys-ically challenged peopleshould not be separated inschools.

This House would eliminateletter grades.

This House believes thateveryone should attend col-lege.

Public education is necessary.

The government should insti-tute mandatory arts educa-tion.

Resolved: Colleges and uni-versities have a moral obli-gation to prohibit the publicexpression of hate speechon their campuses.

This House believes that voca-tional training is more impor-tant than liberal arts educa-tion.

Resolved: That more rigorousacademic standards shouldbe established for all publicelementary and/or second-ary schools

in one or more of the followingareas: language arts, mathe-matics, natural sciences.

Resolved: that charter schoolserode public education.

This House would judgeschools by their examinationresults.

This House would put Latinand Greek on the nationalcurriculum.

This House would always edu-cate boys and girls together.

Resolved: The use of gradesin schools should be aban-doned

This House would make thestudent pay back his debt tosociety.

This House believes that pri-vate schools are not in thepublic interest.

This House believes that reli-gion has no place inschools.

This House would reform edu-cation.

This House would makeschool sport voluntary.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should guaran-tee an opportunity for highereducation to all qualified highschool graduates.

This House rejects militaryrecruiters at educationalinstitutions.

Uniformity in education leadsto mediocrity.

This House would revolution-ize the educational system.

This House believes that everycitizen has a right to a col-lege education.

This House would keep thebedroom out of the class-room.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 321

322


This House believes thatwomen’s studies should notinclude men.

This House would acceptadvertising in public schools.

This House would change itspolicy on funding education.

Resolved that Norplant beavailable to all females stu-dents enrolled in public sec-ondary schools.

This House supports prayer inpublic schools.

Resolved that the federal gov-ernment should deny publiceducation to illegal immi-grants.

Teachers’ salaries should bebased on students’ academ-ic performance.

This House believes that it’sbetter for the Japanesepeople to learn world historythan Japanese history.

Tenure should be abolished inuniversities.

Public education ought to be aright, not a privilege.

This House believes thatschools should not preparestudents for work.

This House believes that com-puters are the demise ofeducation.

This House supports single-sex education.

This House would pass legisla-tion to post the TenCommandments in publicschool classrooms.

This House rejects the busi-ness model for institutionsof higher education.

This House believes that nurs-ery education is a right, nota privilege.

This House would be allowed

to leave school at 14.

This House would chargetuition fees for universitystudents.

This House believes that adegree is a privilege, not aright.

This House would report viola-tions by college students totheir parents.

Institutional censorship of aca-demic material is harmful tothe educational process.

This House believes that uni-versities should report allassaults to the police, evenwithout the consent of thevictim.

Access to higher educationshould be a right.

This House believes that toimprove education, it ismore important to raisesalaries than standards.

Limitations on the content ofsecondary school publica-tions are unjustifiable.

Resolved: The governmentshould adopt a policy ofequalizing educationalopportunity in tax-supported

schools by means of annualgrants.

This House believes that high-er education was intendedfor the intellectual elite.

THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

This House believes that theUSA is more sinned againstthan sinning.

This House would denu-clearize the USA.

Resolved: The Supreme Courtof the USA should uphold

substantive due process.

This House should honor itstreaties with one or moreNative American nations.

This House believes that“Homeland Security”should not be a cabinet levelposition.

This House rejects theAmerican way of life.

This House would have a newsong for America.

This House believes that theUSA should repay its debtto the United Nations.

Resolved: That the USAshould reduce substantiallyits military commitments toNATO member states.

Be it resolved that the USAshould significantly increaseits role in Russia’s financialfuture.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment should adopt anenergy policy that substan-tially reduces nonmilitaryconsumption of

fossil fuels in the UnitedStates of America.

This House believes that jus-tice in America can bebought.

This House believes thatAmerica’s right is wrong.

This house regrets theAmerican response toSeptember 11.

Bush and Cheney are an axisof evil.

Resolved: The USA shouldmove toward protectionismin foreign trade.

The USA should not abandonNational Missile Defense.

A fully insured America isunrealistic.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 322

323


This House wishes PlymouthRock had landed on the pil-grims.

Resolved: that the Rehnquistcourt made the wrong deci-sion.

Resolved: that the SupremeCourt of the United Stateserred in awarding Bush thepresidency.

Racism contributes to UnitedStates’ policy toward Africa.

The U.S.A. should change itsforeign policy.

The Democratic Party is mori-bund.

The U.S. electorate is jadedby campaigning via televi-sion.

Dick Cheney should not haveto reveal confidential infor-mation relating to the Enronscandal.

The Federal CommunicationsCommission should restrictthe use of wireless commu-nication in spectrum desig-nated for digital television.

This House would maintainUnited States military basesin Asia.

This House would curtail cor-porate puppetry of U. S.politics.

The United States hasresponded inappropriately toterrorist attacks.

The United States is a terroristnetwork.

This House believes that theAmerican dream hasbecome a nightmare.

This House believes that, ifAmerica is the world’spoliceman, then the world isAmerica’s Rodney King.

This House regrets the influ-ence of the USA.

Jesse Helms is right.

Americans have too manyrights and not enoughresponsibilities.

The USA ought to increaseaccess to the political sys-tem.

The federal government of theUnited States has respond-ed appropriately to theattack on America.

The United States of Americahas overemphasized individ-ual rights.

The USA should support bilin-gualism.

This House believes that theUSA is a racist society.

Resolved: That all militaryintervention by the UnitedStates of America into theinternal affairs of any foreignnation or nations in theWestern Hemisphere shouldbe prohibited.

Resolved: That any and allinjury resulting from the dis-posal of hazardous waste inthe United States ofAmerica should be the legalresponsibility of the produc-er of that waste.

This House believes thatAmerica’s constitutionalrights are being too harshlyinfringed.

This House believes Bush’seducation plan is animprovement.

This House believes that theUS should take a tougherstance toward Israel.

The USA should significantlyincrease military spending.

Resolved: That the Congressof the USA should enact acompulsory fair employmentpractices law.

Resolved: That the USAshould adopt a policy of freetrade.

Resolved: That the USAshould significantly increaseits foreign military commit-ments.

Resolved: That the USAshould discontinue directeconomic aid to foreigncountries.

Resolved: That the Congressof the USA should be giventhe power to reverse deci-sions of the SupremeCourt.

The USA should punish Chinafor its human rights abuses

This House believes theElectoral College is still nec-essary.

Resolved: The United Statesof America is a terroriststate.

Resolved that the U.S. hasoverplayed the sanctioncard.

This House believes thatAmerica is blinded by thelight.

Resolved: That the UnitedStates of America shouldsubstantially change itstrade policy toward one ormore of the following:China, Hong Kong, Japan,South Korea, Taiwan.

Resolved: That one or moreU.S. Supreme Court deci-sions that recognize a feder-al Constitutional right to pri-vacy should be overruled.

Resolved: That the UnitedStates of America shouldsubstantially change itsdevelopment and assistancepolicies toward one or moreof the following nations:Afghanistan, Bangladesh,

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 323

324


Burma, Bhutan, India, Nepal,Pakistan, Sri Lanka.

This House believes that theforeign policy of the USA isresponsible for Sept. 11

Resolved: That theCommander-in-Chief powerof the President of the USAshould be substantially cur-tailed.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment of the UnitedStates of America shouldamend Title VII of the CivilRights Act of 1964, throughlegislation, to create addi-tional protections againstracial and/or gender discrim-ination.

Resolved: That the federalgovernment of the UnitedStates should adopt a policyof constructive engagement,including the immediateremoval of all or nearly alleconomic sanctions, withthe government(s) of one ormore of the following nation-states: Cuba, Iran, Iraq,Syria, North Korea.

Be it resolved that the U.S.A.should significantly increaseits aid to Russia.

Be it resolved that the U.S.A.should significantly reduceits superpower role.

Be it resolved that the U.S.A.should withdraw fromNAFTA.

Be it resolved that the U.S.A.should significantly revise itstrade status with Japan.

The government of the UnitedStates of America shouldreduce due process protec-tions in one or more areas.

This house believes theSupreme Court has gonetoo far.

Be it resolved that the U.S.A.should stop all aid to IslamicFundamentalist govern-ments.

Be it resolved that the U.S.A.should take a greater role inthe Israelis/Palestinianpeace process.

Be it resolved that the U.S.A.should significantly increaseits ties to China.

Be it resolved that the U.S.A.should lift the embargoagainst Cuba.

Be it resolved that the federalgovernment of the USAshould expand its role ineducating America’s youth.

Be it Resolved that the federalgovernment of the UnitedStates of America shouldfund the relief efforts offaith-based organizations.

This House believes that theFirst Amendment applies tothe Internet.

Jesse Ventura is right.

Be it resolved that hegemonyby the USA is detrimental toworld stability.

American sexual mores areridiculous.

This House believes you cango to the mall and seeAmerica.

This House thinks the USA isthe Titanic.

This House believes that theUSA should be lessinvolved in world affairs.

The American media worksagainst the best interests ofthe public.

The American criminal justicesystem ought to place ahigher priority on retributionthan deterrence.

This House would dramatically

increase funding for theNational Endowment for theArts.

This House is resolved thatPresident Bush should signthe Ottawa Treaty to banthe production and export ofland mines.

This House would treatAmerica’s youth like adults.

We believe that America’ssafety net catches morethan it misses.

Be it Resolved: That the feder-al government should sub-stantially increase its sup-port to the arts of America.

The USA should build a mis-sile defense system.

This House would abolish“Don’t ask, don’t tell” poli-cies.

This House is resolved that aglobal marketplace is goodfor the USA.

Resolved: that PresidentClinton did more harm thangood.

This House would not havenamed Washington NationalAirport after Ronald Reagan.

The Supreme Court shouldexpand executive privilege.

This House would eliminatethe Department ofEducation.

This House would induct the51st state.

This House believes thatMiranda rights favor theguilty.

This House believes in the fallof the American empire.

The Supreme Court ought tointerpret the Constitutionmore strictly.

The United States of America

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 324

325


should mind its own busi-ness.

This House believes that theU.S. government shouldstop subsidizing farmers.

Resolved: The presidential par-don procedure needs to berestructured.

The federal government of theUnited States of Americashould increase its militaryaid to one or more EastAsian nations.

This House would grant politi-cal independence toWashington, D. C.

This House would repeal TitleIX.

The federal government of theUnited States of Americashould substantially changeits nuclear waste policy.

The USA should increase itstrade agreements withAfrica.

The USA should surrender inthe war on drugs.

There should be additions toMount Rushmore.

Resolved that the juvenilecourt system be abolishedin Illinois.

Resolved that UniversityLaboratory High Schooladopt block scheduling.

Resolved that parental notifica-tion of abortions by minorsbe mandatory in the USA.

Resolved that testing for per-formance-enhancing drugsbe implemented in all NCAADivision I sports.

Resolved that all cars pro-duced in the USA afterJanuary 1, 2008 be electricor hybrid-electric.

Resolved that California rein-state affirmative action in all

public universities.

The government of the USAshould significantly curtailaccess to public parks inAmerica.

The USA should approve anEqual Rights Amendment.

Litigation has replaced legisla-tion in America.

This House believes that coun-try music reflects a declinein American culture.

Point Loma NazareneUniversity should kill itsCrusader mascot.

Be it resolved that the UnitedStates of America shouldadopt the Nuclear Test-BanTreaty.

The United States of Americashould reform SocialSecurity.

The Congress of the USAshould enact reparations fordescendants of slaves.

This House would eliminatethe CIA.

The Helms-Burton Act shouldbe enforced.

Resolved: that Medicare isworse than no care at all.

This House believes that theUSA should apologize toLatin America.

This House believes that theIRS needs to be abolished.

This House believes thatAmerican automobiles are abetter bargain thanEuropean automobiles.

THE EUROPEAN UNION

This House believes that theEuropean Community oughtto expand now.

Europe should take deliberatesteps to stop Russia’s siegeof Chechnya.

This House believes that thesingle European currencywill fail.

This House believes thatEurope should be the nextUSA.

This House would join aEuropean defense alliance.

This House welcomesEuropean federalism.

This House believes that awider Europe is not inBritain’s interest.

This House welcomes theEuro.

This House believes thatEurovision song contest isthe role-model.

HEALTH CARE

This House believes that basicmedical care is a privilege,not a right.

Be it resolved that nationalcomprehensive health carewould fail.

The government should pro-vide universal health care.

Capitalism impairs health deliv-ery systems.

This House would significantlyreform the health care sys-tem.

This house would standardizehealth care.

This House would protect thepatient.

This House would force feedanorexics

This House believes that themarkets and health makepoor bedfellows.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 325

326


Resolved: That the nationshould significantly reformits system of health care.

Modern medicine over-empha-sizes prolonging life.

The rich will always be healthi-er than the poor.

UNITED KINGDOM

This House is resolved thatthe British monarchy is thebest system of governmentthe world has ever known.

This House would tax themonarchy.

This House says, “God savethe Queen.”

This House would give Britaina written constitution.

This House would limit theterms of MPs.

Resolved: That the govern-ment should adopt a pro-gram of compulsory healthinsurance for all citizens.

This House would tear up theAct of Union.

This House calls for the dises-tablishment of the Church ofEngland.

This House would allow 18year-olds to be MPs.

This House believes that MPsshould represent their con-stituents, not lobby groups.

This House would introduceproportional representationin Britain.

This House has no confidencein Her Majesty’sGovernment.

This House would providecomplementary medicine onthe NHS.

This House believes that

Britain’s licensing laws areoutdated and draconian.

This House believes that NewLabor is Old Tory.

This House believes that the“first past the post” systemis undemocratic.

This House would privatize theBBC.

This House believes thatBritain has failed its respon-sibilities to refugees.

This House would privatize theNHS.

This House would buy British.

This House would abolish theCommonwealth.

This House believes that theCommonwealth has outlivedits usefulness.

This House believes that, if theCommonwealth didn’t exist,no one would think of men-tioning it.

This House would dissolve theHouse of Lords.

This House would abolish theA-level.

This House would allowqueens to fight for Queenand country.

This House would remove theprivileges of Oxbridge stu-dents.

FORMER SOVIET UNION

This House is resolved thatcommunism was better thancapitalism for Russia.

This House mourns thedemise of the Soviet Union.

MILITARY AFFAIRS

Military conscription is superi-or to a volunteer army.

The military limits freedom ofexpression too much.

This House believes that mili-tary justice is an oxymoron.

This House believes that mili-tary spending is detrimentalto society.

This House would lift the banon gays in the military.

GUN CONTROL

Resolved: That the govern-ment should adopt a policyof mandatory backgroundchecks for the purchasersof firearms.

That possession of handgunsshould be made illegal.

This House should increaseregulation of firearms.

This House believes in theright to bear arms.

Gun manufacturers should beheld liable for gun-relateddeaths.

This House would mandategun safety education in allschools.

Resolved: The governmentshould substantially increaserestrictions on gun manufac-turers.

Citizens should have the rightto carry concealed guns.

Be it resolved that an armedsociety is a polite society.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

This House believes that theunborn child has no rights.

That public money should not

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 326

327


be used to pay for abor-tions.

This House supports surrgacyfor profit

Women should have the rightto have an abortion if theyso choose.

This House believes that awoman’s body is her tem-ple.

This House believes that abor-tion is justifiable.

This House would allow surro-gate motherhood.

Abortion must be outlawed.

This House believes that con-traception for teenagersencourages promiscuity.

OTHER PUBLIC POLICYISSUES

This House would re-introduceNational Service.

This House would continue toprosecute World War IIcriminals.

This House would legalize vol-untary euthanasia.

That the draft should be abol-ished and replaced by pro-fessional military forces.

This House would impose acurfew on children under 10.

This House will support stu-dents’ mobility

This House would maketobacco companies paycompensation to the individ-ual.

This house would put limits onthe issuance of credit cardsto anyone less than 25years old.

Be it resolved that new driverswill be issued a restricted

license, and that theserestrictions will apply for oneyear.

This House would ban smok-ing.

This House would ban smok-ing in public places.

Public transport is more con-venient than cars.

Emergency action for earth-quakes and typhoonsshould be improved.

The automobile is the ultimatecause of urban decline.

FAMILY MATTERS

This House would makedivorce easier.

This House demands newfamily values.

This House believes that mar-riage is an outdated institu-tion.

Marriage and governmentshould be divorced.

This House would get marriedfor the sake of the children.

AUSTRALIA

Australia is an old economycountry.

It is morally justifiable to burynuclear waste in WesternAustralia.

Australian foreign policy hascontributed to Indonesia’sunrest.

CANADA

Be it resolved that nativeCanadians be given the right

to self-government.

Be it resolved that it is essen-tial for Canada to maintainits military presence inSomalia.

Be it resolved that spraying formosquitoes in Winnipeg is inthe best interest of the pub-lic.

Be it resolved that capital pun-ishment be reinstated forpremeditated murder.

Be it resolved that the burningof stubble by Manitobafarmers be restricted.

Be it resolved that the trialperiod for Sunday shoppingbe extended.

Be it resolved that gamblingbe illegal in Manitoba.

Be it resolved that the City ofWinnipeg take the responsi-bility of financing a newarena, to be located withinthe city limits.

Be it resolved that Quebecshould separate fromCanada.

Be it resolved that Canada’smilitary role shall be only inself -defense.

Be it resolved that Canadashall privatize its medicalsystem.

Be it resolved that taxpayermoney no longer be usedfor the support of theWinnipeg Jets.

TOPICS ABOUT DEBATE

This house would run a valuecase

NPDA should embrace one ormore of the following formatchanges: A.Include an addi-tional rebuttal on each

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 327

328


side;B. Add cross-examina-tion time after each con-structive speech; C. Adoptthe Worlds 4-team format

Parliamentary debate shouldpermit quoted evidence tobe used in debates

Debate, by its very nature,teaches unethical practices.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 328

APPENDIX II

RESOURCES

329

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 329

Sample American Parliamentary Debate Ballot

Name of Tournament

Motion:___________________________________________

Proposition

Team Name or Code ___________

Speaker 1__________________ Points _______ Rank ________


Opposition

Team Name or Code ___________



The decision

The Decision is awarded to the (prop/opp) _______________________.

Indicate low-point win ________.

Judge’s Name and Affiliation ___________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Reason for Decision

330


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 330

331

APPENDIX II: RESOURCES

Sample British Parliamentary Debate Ballot

Name of Tournament

Motion:____________________________________________

Judges Names ________________________________________________

FIRST PROPOSITION TEAM:

Rank: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

(circle)

Speaker 1: Score:

Speaker 2: Score:

FIRST OPPOSITION TEAM:


(circle)

Speaker 1: Score:

Speaker 2: Score:

SECOND PROPOSITION TEAM:


(circle)

Speaker 1: Score:

Speaker 2: Score:

SECOND OPPOSITION TEAM:


(circle)

Speaker 1: Score:

Speaker 2: Score:

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 331

Tournament Director’s Responsibilities

Before the tournament

ANNOUNCING THE TOURNAMENT

• Acquire contact information• Arrange for a date and site• Draft an invitation

INFORMATION FOR TOURNAMENT GUESTS

• Schedule• Transportation information• Lodging information• Meal information

TOURNAMENT OPERATIONS

• Tabulating Room Staff• Tabulating Hardware and Software• Tournament Office Supplies• Guest judging

TOURNAMENT MATERIALS

• Registration packet• Awards• Ballots• Instructional Information• Topic Writing and Selection

ANCILLARY INFORMATION

• Last Minute Travel Information• Harassment and Legal Information• Videotaping and Broadcast Preparation• Confirmations

332


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 332

333


Tournament Director’s Responsibilities

During the tournament

OPENING EVENTS

• Registration• Instructional Sessions

TOURNAMENT OPERATIONS

• Announcements• Tabulations• Services: Meals, Lodging, Entertainment, Awards• Troubleshooting

After the tournament

DOCUMENTATION

• Ballots and Tabulation Results• Tournament Information• Review and Evaluation

PUBLICITY AND CONCLUSION

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 333

Websites (Debate Sites)

American Parliamentary Debate Associationhttp://www.apdaweb.org/

Associacion Nacional De Debate Politico (Spanish language,Mexico)http://simarro.net/asociacion.nacional/ASOCIACIONNACIONALDEDEBATEPOLITICO.html

Australasian Intervarsity Debating Associationhttp://www.debating.net/aida/

British Debate (English Speaking Union)http://www.britishdebate.com/

Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debatehttp://www.cusid.ca/

Debate Centralhttp://debate.uvm.edu/

English-Speaking Unionhttp://www.esu.org/

Estonian Debate Societyhttp://www.debate.ee/English/EngIndex.html

European Debating Councilhttp://www.debating.net/EUCouncil/

International Debate Education Associationhttp://www.idebate.org/

Japan Parliamentary Debate Associationhttp://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~cj3m-lbky/parlidebate.html

Latvian Universities Debating Centerhttp://www.debating.net/ludc/

National Parliamentary Debate Associationhttp://www.bethel.edu/Majors/Communication/npda/home.html

Slovakian Debate Associationhttp://www.sda.sk/

South African National Debating Councilhttp://www.debating.org.za/

334


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 334

335


Spanish Universities Debate Leaguehttp://www.debating.net/flynn/spain.HTM

World Debating Web pagehttp://www.debating.net/flynn/colmmain.htm

Websites (Debate Support)

Understanding USA: www.ted.com

Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential: www.uia.org

UN Human Rights Web site: www.unchr.org

Human Rights Watch: www.hrw.org

Lawyers Committee for Human Rights: www.lchr.org

Amnesty International: www.amnesty.org

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairswww.ksgnotes1.harvard.edu.bcsia

Institute for Policy Studies: www.ips-dc.org

Peace and Conflict Resolution Gateway: www.csf.colorado.edu/peace

PeaceNet/EcoNet/WomensNet/AntiRacismNet: www.igc.org

International Peace Research Institute, Oslo: www.prio.org

World Health Organization: www.who.int

Medicins Sans Frontieres: www.doctorswithoutborders.org

Physicians for Social Responsibility: www.psr.org

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 335

American Public Health Association: www.apha.org

National Council on Science and the Environment: www.cnie.org

Feminist Gateway: www.feminist.org/gateway

Queer Resources Directory: www.qrd.org

Planned Parenthood Federation of America: www.plannedparenthood.org

US Federal Government Resources: www.fedworld.gov

National Archives:www.nara.gov/research

Legal Resources: www.findlaw.com

Legal Information Institute: www.law.cornell.edu

Justice Information Center: www.ncjrs.org

National Bureau of Economic Research: www.nber.org

Education World: www.education-world.com/research

Environmental Research Foundation: www.rachel.org

US Institute for Peace: www.usip.org

Federation of American Scientists: www.fas.org

National Security Archive: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv

336


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 336

337

APPENDIX III

ARGUMENTATION

AND DEBATE

GLOSSARY

act utilitarianism A theory of ethics that says our duty is to act in the way that pro-duces actual overall consequences better than, or at least as good as, those that anyother act open to us would produce.

action theory A methodology for critical examination that dictates that the socialinvestigator should not be indifferent to the object of study. This theory argues thatbecause individuals are both the subjects and objects of study, any investigation shouldinvolve principled stands on the problems studied and intentions of changing these cir-cumstances.

actualization theory A theory of human behavior, based on the work of AbrahamMaslow, that claims that individuals will strive toward becoming everything they canbe, given the psychological need for self-fulfillment. Maslow proposed a hierarchy ofneeds: physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization, with finalachievement possible after lower-order needs are fulfilled.

ad hominem An attack on the advocate of an argument rather than on the content ofthe argument itself.

Ad populum An appeal to the people or other majoritarian sentiment as the basis fora claim.

add-on An advantage of the affirmative plan. Usually presented in the 2nd affirmativeconstructive and independent of whatever advantages were presented in the 1st affir-mative constructive.

advantage The claimed benefits of the affirmative plan.

affirmative The side in a debate that supports the resolution.

agent counterplan A counterplan that argues that the plan the affirmative implements

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 337

through one agent of change should instead be implemented through another agent ofchange.

agent of action The persons or institutions responsible for implementation of policydirectives.

alternate causality A circumstance in which more than a single cause may result in aparticular effect.

analogy A similarity or likeness between things in some circumstances or effects, whenthe things are otherwise entirely different.

anarchism A theory advocating social relations without coercive government thatholds that society should be held together and progress by the natural harmony ofdecentralized voluntary associations.

appeal to tradition A fallacy of reasoning; an appeal to historical behavior as the basisfor continuing to act in a certain manner.

apriorism The claim of a presumptive truth or condition.

argument A reason or reasons offered for or against a proposition or measure.

as-if hypothesis A method of thinking in which one formulates a coherent conjectureand proceeds to critically examine an issue on the basis that this conjecture is proba-bly true.

assertion An unsupported statement; a conclusion that lacks evidence for support.

attitudinal inherency A type of inherency that identifies an unwillingness of those inpower in the present system to take corrective measures to solve the affirmative’s harm.

audience The listening, reading, or viewing individual or group reached by a perfor-mative or communicative act.

authority A position of power, credibility, or special function, attained by qualities ofexperience, insight, and skill.

backlash A response to progressive campaigns for marginalized or powerless socialgroups, involving efforts to discredit and undermine social advances.

ballot: 1) Literally, the piece of paper filled out at the end of a debate by a judge thatsays who won, who lost, and who got what speaker points. 2) Figuratively, whatdebaters are trying to win in each debate, so that they can be said to "collect" ballotsthrough the course of a tournament, i.e., "We have three ballots, so I think we’re goingto clear."

begging the question An argumentative fallacy offering repetition of a claim as a prooffor a claim.

better definition standard Proofs used to establish a hierarchical ranking system forthe definitions of terms for a proposition.

bias A prejudiced attitude on the part of the source of evidence quoted in a debate. Itis often argued that when sources are biased, their testimony is questionable and some-times unacceptable.

bibliographical criticism Criticism of texts that pays close attention to format and thecircumstances of publication as factors influencing meaning.

bracket The arrangement of teams in elimination rounds whereby teams debate eachother according to seeding.

break To advance to the elimination rounds of a tournament. (See also clear.)

break rounds Preliminary rounds in which a team’s ability to clear and advance toelimination rounds is at stake. At most tournaments, teams will need a certain record

338


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 338

339

APPENDIX III: GLOSSARY

to advance to the elimination rounds, such as 3-2 or 5-3.

brief The outline of an argument, including claims, supportive reasoning, and evi-dence.

brink An element of a disadvantage which claims that the policy action of the affirma-tive plan is a sufficient condition to alter current institutions in a way to produce a dan-gerous or counterproductive consequence. A brink is the point at which a disadvan-tage begins to happen: It may be said that the plan would push us "over the brink" intothe abyss of the impact.

burden of proof The responsibility of the person, upon introducing an argument, toprovide sufficient reasoning and detail for the argument that the opponent is obligedto take the issue into consideration.

canon A set of works described as essential for the national literary culture.

capital theory Differing economic analyses of the theories of production, growth,value, and distribution.

cards Evidentiary quotations used to support arguments.

case The affirmative argument for the resolution; usually a reference to the argumentspresented in the opening constructive speech by the affirmative side.

case list A list kept by a squad and by individual teams that tracks what plans andadvantages are being run by other teams.

case-side Issues that relate to the stock or core issues of an affirmative case, includingthe demonstration of the ongoing nature of a problem (inherency), the qualitativeand/or quantitative measure of a problem (significance), and the availability of a poten-tial remedy for a problem (solvency). Also referred to as "on-case" arguments.

categorical imperative From the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the generalclaim that one should not act in ways that one cannot, without inconsistency, will thateveryone else should act as well.

causal principles An expression of multiple principles, such as that every event has acause, that the same cause must have the same effect, and that the cause must have atleast as much reality as the effect.

chaos theory The study of phenomena that appear to be random, but actually have anelement or regularity that can be described mathematically.

citation The identifying, bibliographical reference material for evidence used in aspeech. At a minimum, the citation for expert testimony must include the author’sname and qualifications, the publication’s title and date, and the page number for thespecified quotation. Also known as the "cite."

civil society The nongovernmental aspects of modern society, e.g., religious, econom-ic, and voluntary associational relations.

clash The direct and indirect opposition of the arguments of another person or side ina debate.

clear Slang. "to clear" To advance to the elimination rounds of a tournament. (See alsobreak.)

closure A sense of formal completeness or clear outcome.

collectivism A theory of social and political organization, based on common or collec-tive action, rather than individual action. The most general form of collective action isthe state.

comparative advantage An argument, usually employed by the affirmative, that saysthat even if the affirmative does not completely solve the harm, it is still advantageous

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 339

compared to the status quo.

competitiveness An argument for evaluating the legitimacy of a counterplan in formaldebate. The presence of the counterplan should force a choice for the decision makerbetween the policies advocated by the affirmative plan and the counterplan.Competition is the quality of a policy that makes it a reason to reject another policy.Classically, competition was measured solely by means of mutual exclusivity. Now,however, competition is largely defined in terms of net benefits so that when we say acounterplan is competitive or net beneficial, we mean that it is better alone than theplan or any combination of the whole plan and all or part of the counterplan. (See alsopermutations, net benefits, counterplan, mutual exclusivity.)

concede To admit that an opponent is right about a certain argument or set of argu-ments. (See also grant.)

conditional Arguments advanced in debates that may be dropped at any time withoutrepercussion to their advocates. Usually this phrase is used in the context of condi-tional counterplans, which can be dropped if undesirable without forfeiture of thedebate.

consequentialism A doctrine that the moral rightness of an act or policy dependsentirely on its outcome or consequences.

constructive speeches The foundational, opening speeches of a formal debate, inwhich the participants establish the major arguments that will be subject to analysis,refutation, and revision in the debate’s subsequent stages.

consultation counterplan A counterplan that argues that we should consult anotherrelevant actor as to whether or not the proposition team’s plan should be implement-ed. That alternate actor is therefore given a kind of veto power over the adoption ofthe proposition team’s plan. If the alternate actor says yes, the plan is adopted. If, onthe other hand, the alternate actor says no, the plan is not adopted.

contentions The outlined arguments of the opening affirmative constructive speech.

contextual definitions A defining interpretation of the resolution that incorporatesmany or all of the terms of the topic.

cooption The influence of outside parties hampering an agency’s [[agent’s??]] effortsto carry out his instructions.

counterplan: 1) Noun A policy proposed by the opposition. The policy must offer areason to reject the affirmative plan in the debate. Generally, the counterplan willeither try to solve the affirmative’s harms in a more beneficial way, e.g., by "avoiding"(not linking to) disadvantages accrued by the affirmative plan. Traditionally, it wasthought that counterplans had to be both non-topical and competitive. These days, top-ical counterplans are more accepted as the emphasis shifts to net benefits and policycomparison and away from abstract theoretical concerns. Counterplans may also haveadvantages, which are similar to affirmative advantages in that they are benefitsaccrued by the counterplan. 2) Verb To run a counterplan.

counterposition See counterplan.

criteria Methods of decision making in a debate.

critical linguistics A method of analyzing the structure of language, presuming anencoded system of beliefs and ideologies in the use of social and political language andtexts.

criticism Any or all of the activities of evaluation, description, classification, or inter-pretation of language and text.

cross-examination The question-and-answer period following constructive speeches

340


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 340

341


in formal policy debates.

debatability A standard, usually found in topicality debates, that says that as long asa definition provides fair grounds for debate, it should be accepted.

debate format The order of speeches and the speaking time limits for each speech.

decentering A tool of deconstruction involving the denial, dissemination, or deferral ofcentral meanings, particularly authoritarian Western concepts.

decision-making theory The investigation of the rational decision processes of personsand institutions in government and politics.

deconstruction A strategic textual analysis demonstrating a profound skepticism con-cerning the stability of meaning in language, based on the questioning methods ofFrench philosopher Jacques Derrida.

deductive reasoning The act of reasoning from known principle to an unknown, fromthe general to the specific.

delay counterplan A counterplan that suggests that the judge or audience withholdimplementation of the proposition team’s plan until a specific time or condition namedby the opposition team.

deontology The view that duty is a primary moral notion and that at least some of ourduties do not depend on any value that may result in fulfilling them. In some circum-stances, the justification of duties is an appeal to absolute rule, e.g., an opposition tothe taking of life.

dialectic theory The investigation of the complex and sophisticated approaches toconflict or dialogue in which the generation, interpretation, and clash of opposing ideasleads to a fuller mode of thought.

dialogism The underlying assumptions of the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin,that argue that all utterances are dialogic in that they anticipate the response of theaudience. In speech, therefore, we "define ourselves" by our relationships to others.

difference principle A proposal by political philosopher John Rawls that argues thatunequal treatment is only justified if, by so doing, the least advantaged members of asociety are made better off.

disadvantage (also known as a "DA" or "dis-ad") The bad thing that will happen whena plan goes into effect. In formal debates, opposition teams run disadvantages whenthey want to show that adoption of the government’s plan will lead to far greater unde-sirable than desirable consequences. To win a debate on a disadvantage, the oppositionteam must generally prove at least three basic things: that the disadvantage links to theaffirmative plan; that it is unique to the affirmative plan; and that the impact of the dis-advantage is sufficiently undesirable to outweigh the affirmative advantages.

disco A charming, somewhat old-fashioned term used to describe a debate strategywhere a team takes advantage of the interrelationship among arguments in the debate.Usually, one team will strategically concede large portions of their opponents’ argu-ments, hoping that this tactic will allow the debate to re-focus favorably on their argu-ments. Often this strategy is used to capitalize on mistakes or contradictory argumentsmade by the other team.

discourse analysis An approach to language analysis, emphasizing action and interac-tion in texts and speeches.

dispositional counterplan A counterplan which, if proven disadvantageous or non-competitive, can be dismissed from consideration.

double turn In answering a disadvantage, a double turn takes place when a teamargues a link turn ("We solve that problem") AND an impact turn ("That problem is

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 341

actually a benefit") on the same disadvantage. When this happens, the affirmative issaying that they stop a good thing from happening; in essence, running a new disad-vantage against themselves.

effects topicality A type of topicality standard that contends that the government’scase is only topical by effect rather than by mandate. In these debates, it is often saidthat the government has failed to present a prima facie case or that they have mixedburdens – in this case, the burdens of solvency and topicality.

elimination rounds The single-elimination rounds that occur after the preliminaryrounds at most tournaments. These rounds are usually seeded, using a bracket where-by the top seed (the team with the highest preliminary record) debates the bottomseed, etc.

empirical evidence Evidence or proof that is based on past examples or statistical studies.

empiricism Any theory emphasizing experience rather than reason as the basis for jus-tifiable decision making.

essentialism The belief that there are essential features, or universal foundations, ofhuman nature.

ethnography The study of expression and speech from culture to culture.

evidence Expert testimony, in the form of quotations from literature, broadcasts, theInternet, etc., used to support a debater’s reasoning. Broadly, evidence is also reason-ing used to prove a point.

example A sample that is selected to show the qualities or characteristics of a largergroup.

existential inherency A kind of inherency that argues that if the affirmative candemonstrate a massive problem exists, then they have met their burden of inherencyby showing that the present system is not solving it.

extensions Arguments that occur in response to opponents’ arguments that extend anddevelop the original arguments.

externalities The costs and benefits of economic activity that are not incurred orenjoyed by the person or group performing it.

extra-topicality Government plans that contain planks or actions not specificallycalled for by the resolution.

fallacy A mistaken inference or an erroneous conclusion based on faulty reasoning.

false dichotomy Also known as a false dilemma, an argument fallacy that falsely ana-lyzes a circumstance as a choice between only two possible alternatives.

federalism 1) A political concept, critical in the framing of the Constitution of the USAand elsewhere, that divides labor between the states and the federal government. 2) Adisadvantage, sometimes run in conjunction with the states counterplan, which usual-ly argues that the affirmative plan is an abuse of federal power, i.e., it violates the fed-eralist doctrine, and that is bad.

feminism Any of the varieties of analysis of the exploitation and manipulation ofwomen; some of these analyses provide proposals for social reform and transformation.

fiat A term used to describe the process that allows debate of the affirmative plan as ifit were already adopted.

field definition An interpretation of individual terms or phrases of a debate proposi-tion from an academic discipline or scholarly "field."

flow A system of note taking for debates that includes systematized guides for multi-ple speakers and tracking multiple issues.

342


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 342

343


flow sheet Also known as flow, the transcription of a debate; the notes used by debateparticipants to track arguments from speech to speech.

funding plank The part of the plan naming or listing those sources from which theplan will receive its funding.

games theory In debate, a paradigm that holds that debate is a kind of academic gameand should thus be fair and competitive for its participants

generic arguments Arguments, usually used by the opposition, that are general andcan be made to apply to a wide range of affirmative cases or plans.

grant out of To concede some of the opposition’s arguments in order to back off of aposition a debater had previously taken. For example, the speaker might concede theaffirmative’s "no link" argument to render the opponent’s disadvantage irrelevant.

hasty generalization A claim that an example, or set of examples, is insufficient toprove a more generalized proposition.

hermeneutics The study of interpretation.

hypothesis testing A paradigm whereby the resolution is considered to be like a sci-entific hypothesis. The debate is said to test the truth of the resolutional statement("This House should…"). Many people characterize this paradigm as implying that theresolution should be the focus of the debate, as opposed to policy making, whichimplies that the plan should be the focus of the debate.

ideology An investigation of the general science of ideas, knowledge, and values. Thehistorical development of ideology understands individual perception and value asshaped by the social and economic situation of a person.

impact Most generally, the consequence of an idea that is presented in a debate. Theconsequence may be expressed in terms of the qualitative or quantitative significanceof an issue or the role that an idea will play in the outcome of the debate. Typically,impacts are the bad or good events that happen as a result of an affirmative case, coun-terplan, or disadvantages.

indeterminacy The assumption that texts have gaps and inconsistencies built intothem and that they are open to multiple possibilities for interpretation. The reader isthus obliged to revise the text with her or his own knowledge, identity, and experience.

individualism An understanding of human social life through the behavior of individ-uals. As the basic unit of society, individuals (not groups or nations) have rights thatserve as the basis for moral reasoning.

inductive reasoning The act of reasoning from the specific to the general.

inherency 1) An explanation of the reason or reasons for the failure of current deci-sion makers to make policy moves in the direction of implementation of the affirmativeplan. In formal debates, the issue of inherency functions to establish the probability ofunique advantages for the affirmative. 2) The thing or reason why someone is notdoing something about a plan right now; the cause of a problem’s existence.

intertextuality A concept that suggests that texts are not autonomous objects withclearly defined boundaries but are involved in a web of references to other textualmaterial through allusion, quotation, style, assumption, etc.

intrinsic A description of a situation in which a disadvantage is a necessary result ofthe affirmative plan and cannot be prevented in another way. Sometimes governmentteams may argue that the opposition’s disadvantages are "not intrinsic" to their plan,i.e., they could be prevented by other means.

invisible hand An expression by Scot economist Adam Smith to describe his beliefthat the actions of individuals in a free marketplace taken for their own economic ben-

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 343

efit are guided in a manner to provide benefits for the society as a whole.

irony A mode of expression in which one thing is said and the opposite is meant.

jargon Specialized or technical language. In formal debate, jargon describes the use ofterms not readily discernible to a lay audience, e.g., "fiat," "competitiveness," "effectstopicality," "off-case," "permutation," etc.

judging philosophy A method or practice a judge uses to decide the outcome of around. Although few judges have explicit philosophies or ironclad paradigms anymore,it is possible to guess their judging philosophy through careful observation and expe-rience.

jurisdiction An argument often used in topicality debates that assumes the resolutionprovides limits on the judge’s power. This argument states that if the plan is not topi-cal, the judge has no power to fiat the plan and it is said to be outside her or his juris-diction.

kritiking Otherwise known as "critiquing," this is a method of criticism in formaldebate that focuses on the language, reasoning, underlying assumptions, expert testi-mony, interpretations, and proofs of the opponent. The argument form is often referredto as a "critique" or "kritik", meaning a type of argument that uncovers the fundamen-tal assumptions of a team, case, word, or argument, and uses criticism of those funda-mental assumptions to win the debate.

lay judge A term applied to persons who judge debates but who are not formallytrained in policy debate (i.e., are not coaches or debaters or former debaters). Treatwith respect.

legislative intent Part of a plan that provides that future judgments about the mean-ing of the plan will be based on its advocates’ speeches.

limiting standards Any of the evaluations of the definitions of the terms of a formaldebate proposition that establish a hierarchical system and demonstrate a preferencefor precise, conservative, and "limited" interpretations of the terms.

Lincoln-Douglas debate A debate format in which two individuals debate each other,using a time format of 6-3-7-3-4-6-3 (six minute opening affirmative constructivespeech, three minute cross-examination, seven minute negative constructive speech,three minute cross-examination, four minute affirmative rebuttal, six minute negativerebuttal, three minute closing affirmative rebuttal).

linearity A ratio of the degree of policy action to a degree of beneficial or undesirableconsequences.

linguistic competence An idealization of the knowledge rather than the use of lan-guage.

linguistic criticism An investigation of a text that considers its cultural and historicalsetting.

link A causal relationship. In formal debates, the relationship of one’s argument to theopponent’s position and the internal chain of reasoning in a complex argument. Morespecifically, links are how disadvantages or advantages apply to an proposition team’scase. Note: Since disadvantages often employ chains of causal reasoning, we mayspeak of different levels of link. An "initial link" is the one that applies directly to theproposition team’s plan or advantages, while the "internal links" are links in reasoningor causality that bridge the gap between the initial link and the impact.

iterary theory The assumptions and methods of textual analysis, including the appli-cation of a text to external analysis (e.g., Marxism, feminism, anarchism, psycho-analysis, linguistics, sociology, etc.).

344


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 344

345


Marxist criticism An approach to textual criticism that relates the literature to thepolitical, economic, and social circumstances of its production.

metaphor A reference to one object in terms of another, so that the features of the sec-ond are transferred to the first. Metaphor is claimed to be the central process by whichhumans construct the world through language.

mixing burdens A term from the antiquated concept of stock issues, that describeswhen a proposition team uses one stock issue to prove another. This tactic is said to beunfair because the proposition team has to prove each issue independently. The onlyway this term is currently used is in debates about effects topicality, where the oppo-sition may argue that a government team is using their solvency to prove they are top-ical. This is said to be bad because the government’s case should have to be a topicalexample in order to allow the opposition a fair chance to clash with the affirmative.

multiple causations The claim that no one factor can account for the outcome of a par-ticular event and that there are many factors that lead to its occurrence; these factorsinteract and cannot be considered independently in assessing the outcome of a behav-ior.

mutual exclusivity A claim that it is impossible for the proposition team’s plan and thecounterplan to coexist and an historical test for the competitiveness of a counterplanin formal debates. For example, an affirmative plan that calls for the USA to increaseand modernize its NATO forces and a counterplan that calls for the USA to withdrawfrom NATO are said to be "mutually exclusive."

narrative A presentation that has the qualities and form of a story.

narrative fidelity The plausibility or credibility of a story, how likely the elements ofa story are true.

Nash equilibrium Named after mathematician John Nash, the concept refers to a sit-uation in which individuals participating in a game (a central concept of gaming theo-ry and its application to debate as a "game") pursue the best possible strategy whilepossessing knowledge of the other players’ strategies. The principle works on thepremise that any individual cannot improve her or his opportunities given the otherplayers’ strategies.

natural justice Generalist legal principles that are independent of the conventions orformal practices of particular legal systems.

natural law A foundation for human law, natural law refers to embedded principles inhuman society or the rules of conduct or innate moral sense inherent in the relations ofhuman beings and discoverable by reason or recognized by historical developments. Itis contrasted with statutory or common law.

natural rights A theory of human rights that argues that rights arise from the natureof human and social existence.

negative The side of a formal debate that opposes the affirmative’s proofs for the res-olution.

negative utilitarianism A version of utilitarianism that substitutes the reduction ofharmful or undesirable consequences for the provision of goods or benefits. The pur-pose of the theory is to avoid the disadvantages of utopianist criticism, namely, thatthere are dangers inherent in the design and implementation of a "perfect" world. Theprinciple of negative utilitarianism attempts to avoid those costs by re-framing the dis-cussion to focus on the elimination of evil.

net benefits One standard of counterplan competition. A counterplan is said to be "netbeneficial" when it alone is a policy option superior to the whole plan and all or anypart of the counterplan; in other words, the counterplan forces a choice between the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 345

policies advanced by the affirmative and negative teams in the debate.

nihilism A theory that rejects traditional values, such as the belief in knowledge, meta-physical truth, and the foundation of ethical principles.

normal means A term usually applied to proposition team plans used to describe thespecifics of how the plan might be funded, implemented, or enforced. For example, ateam’s plan might say at the end: "Funding and enforcement through normal means."Often what is meant is: "However a plan like ours might normally be done, that is howthis plan will be done." Proposition teams usually say they employ this phrase to avoidconfusion; however, it serves a strategic purpose in plan design. Do not assume thatthere is general agreement over what "normal means" means. In the case of funding,for example, there are many ways that governments fund their programs (borrowing,re-allocation, new spending, etc.).

objectivism One or more theories that claim that a given subject matter containsobjects existing independently of human beliefs and attitudes.

off-case In a formal debate, the opposition argumentation (in limited circumstances,supplemental proposition team argumentation) that does not directly refute the foun-dational arguments of the case proper, i.e., the first affirmative constructive arguments."Off-case" generally refers to the forms of indirect refutation by the negative, e.g., top-icality arguments, counterplans, disadvantages, and critiques. This term used to meanthe arguments made in a debate that linked to the plan, as opposed to those that linkedto the case. These days, it refers to arguments that are being debated on pieces of paperother than those devoted to the affirmative case. These arguments should be labeled as"off-case" arguments in the opposition speaker’s roadmap, where she or he will saysomething like "I’m going to present two ‘off-case’ arguments, and then I’ll be debat-ing the proposition team’s advantage and solvency."

off-case flow The notes transcribing the off-case arguments.

on-case In a formal debate, the argumentation by the affirmative and negative sidesthat is directed to the foundational or stock issues of the affirmative case, i.e., the issuesof inherency, significance, and solvency. (See also case-side.)

opportunity cost The sacrifice made when selecting one policy over another.

paradigm A systematic and rational appraisal of debate that identifies the preferredfeatures of the event and suggests models of analysis and deliberation. In contempo-rary policy debate, the most common paradigmatic approaches have included policymaking, hypothesis testing, gaming, and performance. Although paradigms are usual-ly conflated with judging philosophies, debaters can and often do have paradigms. (Seealso judging philosophies.)

paradox A contradictory statement from which a valid inference may be drawn.

parliamentary debate A format for extemporaneous debate. Parliamentary debateinvolves two-person or three-person teams. Formats include two or four competingteams in a single debate. Debate is on a topic announced some 15 to 20 minutes beforeeach debate. Limited parliamentary procedures (points of information, points of per-sonal privilege, points of order) are used in the contests, varying by tournament guide-line.

parsimony principle A claim that one should pursue the simplest hypothesis; alsoknown as Ockham’s Razor, the principle suggests that one should not make assump-tions that are not essential to a proof and that one should not make extended, con-trived, and artificial relations between concepts.

permutation A test of the competitiveness of a counterplan or counterposition, it is anargument that explains how the functions of the plan and counterplan are comple-

346


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 346

347


mentary and mutually supportive. More practically, a permutation is a type of argu-ment used by affirmatives to illustrate the noncompetitiveness of counterplans.Affirmatives argue that if it is possible to imagine the coexistence of the plan and thecounterplan, and if such an imagined example would be net beneficial, then the coun-terplan does not provide a reason to reject the affirmative. (See also net beneficial.)

philosophical competition A now-defunct standard of competition for counterplansthat argues that since the two plans are philosophically different, they are exclusive ofone another.

plan spike A part of the plan designed to improve its workability or diminish its dis-advantages.

policy debate A format of formal debate that calls for implementation of a policy direc-tive or course of action. The common format for policy debate involves team debatewith constructive speeches of eight or nine minutes and rebuttal speeches of five or sixminutes for each of the participants. There is usually a three-minute cross-examinationperiod following each of the constructive speeches.

policy making A paradigm that says debate rounds should be evaluated from the per-spective of a pseudo-legislator weighing the advantages and disadvantages of two con-flicting policy systems. (See also paradigm.)

post hoc ergo propter hoc: Literally, "after the fact, therefore because of the fact." Afallacy of reasoning that presumes a specific causal relation for two or more conditionsbecause one of the events followed the other event.

post-modernism Theories of culture and politics that claim that the values andassumptions of modernism no longer hold and a reassessment is in order, based on alte-rior perspectives of a number of individuals and groups.

pragmatism The claim that the meanings of propositions lay in their possible effectson our experiences; a test of the validity of concepts by their practical effects.

preemption or preempt An argument designed to respond to another argument thathas not been made, but which is anticipated.

preparation time Also known as "prep time," a period of time given to individuals orteams to prepare their speeches during a debate.

present system A description of current governmental, corporate, educational, andcultural institutions or policies.

presumption A corollary of burden of proof, the argument that accords an advantageto the attitudes, institutions, and practices that currently exist. In other words, "pre-sumption" is the assumption that a system should be kept unless there is a clear reasonto change it. Although this term comes from law, in debate it is usually understood tomean that the judge should presume for the status quo unless the affirmative or gov-ernment team provides a clear and convincing reason to change. (See also burden ofproof, status quo.)

prima facie Literally, "on its face," the responsibility of the advocate of a debate reso-lution to offer a proof for the proposition in the opening presentation, such that anopponent is obliged to answer the major elements of the case proper.

procedural arguments The arguments that establish the way the elements of a debatewill be conducted; determinative issues that are contested in a debate regarding debatepractice and the method of appropriate decision making and distinguished from thesubstantive issues of the proposition.

proof That which reduces uncertainty and increases the probable truth of a claim.Evidence is transformed into proof through the use of reasoning, which demonstrates

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 347

how and to what extent the claim is believable. Proof is, of course, a relative concept,ranging from probability to certainty.

proposition Also known as a "topic" or a "resolution," a subject to be discussed or astatement to be upheld. Usually, a proposition is of fact, value, or policy that the affir-mative is obligated to support. The resolution is generally understood to focus debateby dividing argument ground on any given topic.

rationalism A theory advancing reasoning as the basis for making moral judgmentsand acquiring knowledge.

reasonability A topicality standard that says the affirmative only need offer a defini-tion that is not excessively broad and would appear legitimate at first glance.

rebuttal Refutation of an opponent’s argument; also, the summary speeches of adebate.

reductio ad absurdum Literally, a "reduction to absurdity," a proof of a proposition byshowing that its opposite is absurd or a disproof of a proposition by showing that itslogical conclusion is impossible or absurd.

refutation The overthrowing of an argument, opinion, testimony, etc. Refutation is adirect and specific response to an opponent’s argument.

resolution See proposition.

reverse voting issue An argument that suggests that the presentation of a frivolous orunfair issue in a debate should subject the advocate of the argument to a loss.

rule utilitarianism A version of utilitarianism that suggests that one should not seekthe best possible outcome but one that is generally satisfactory.

sandbag To preserve important parts of an argument for use in a later speech.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis The thesis that languages vary substantially and unpre-dictably and that these differences in languages construct different perspectives andrealities.

scarecrow Formerly known as a "straw man," this is a fallacious argument that identi-fies a weak argument of an opponent and falsely characterizes all of the opponent’sarguments as equally deficient.

scenario An outline of a real or imagined case study of a proposed course of action.Usually, a scenario is a picture, explained through specific examples, of what wouldoccur if an advantage or disadvantage were to happen. (See also story.)

scouting The practice of knowing what arguments are being made by other teams,scouting is necessary for adequate preparation. Scouting includes, but is not limited to,keeping a case list. (See also case list.)

second line Additional evidence for presentation in rebuttals or constructive exten-sions.

self-fulfilling prophecy The principle that events occur as anticipated, not becauseone is able to predict a potential effect, but rather because one will behave in a man-ner that will inexorably produce the effect.

self-serving bias The claim that people will tend to deny responsibility for failure andtake credit for success.

semantics The scientific study of the nature, structure, and meanings of speech forms.

semiotics A study of the science of signs or codes (oral, textual, artistic, etc.) in socie-ty.

severance permutation A permutation that contains only part of (rather than all of)

348


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 348

349


the proposition team’s plan.

shift To abandon an original position and take up a different one.

shotgun A strategy of presenting a profusion of unrelated, scattered attacks against anopponent’s case. Usually considered to be tacky.

significance An expression of qualitative or quantitative dimension of a problem orcondition; often listed as a "stock issue" in formal debate. Traditionally used as a meas-ure of the need claimed by the affirmative or proposition team.

slippery slope Widely recognized as a logical fallacy, this type of argument says that aparticular course of action sets in motion an unstoppable chain of events whereby anundesirable result becomes inevitable. One example of this argument is often made indebates about assisted suicide – "If we allow some so-called mercy killings, what’s tostop the state from calling other bigoted policies mercy killings as well?" (See also fal-lacy.)

snowball An argument very similar to the slippery slope, which states that a smallaction can become much bigger through time: Imagine a snowball rolling downhill,collecting more snow as it goes.

social contract The duty to obey the government and the law and the right of the gov-ernment to make the law arises from the contractual relationship, explicit or implied,of the government and the governed.

socialism A variety of theories emphasizing that the social or collective nature of eco-nomic production serves as the justification for public action regarding the distributionof economic goods and services.

solipsism A claim that nothing exists beyond one’s immediate experiences.

solvency A stock issue that expresses the ability to successfully implement a suggest-ed policy directive. Solvency is the ability of the affirmative plan or negative counter-plan to solve the problem.

speech act theory Developed by John Rogers Searle, the claim that when one is say-ing something, one is simultaneously doing something.

spread The rapid introduction of multiple arguments in a formal debate.

standards A hierarchy or ranking system to evaluate arguments presented in a debate,usually an evaluation of the merit of definitions of key terms of the resolution in a top-icality argument. A set of rules that allows the judge to decide which argument is bet-ter. Usually employed in topicality debates or counterplan competition discussions.

states counterplan A specific type of counterplan. Opposition teams often counterplanwith sub-federal action, saying the 50 states (in the USA) or other provincial, decen-tralized governments would be a superior policy option. This counterplan is often runwith net benefits such as the federalism disadvantage. These disadvantages, in order tobe considered net benefits, would have to argue that federal action in the area of theplan was bad. Frequently, opposition teams running this counterplan will also claimthat their policy is better suited to solve the affirmative harm area because states arebetter positioned (via efficiency, experimentation, enforcement, or whatever) than thefederal government. (See also counterplan, federalism, net benefits.)

status quo Literally, "the way things are." An understanding of current institutions andpolicies; the current state of affairs. Usually, the proposition team tries to prove that aworld with their plan would be better than the status quo.

stock issues The core elements of a logical proof of an affirmative case, including thekey elements inherency, significance, and solvency.

story Debaters often use stories to prove their points. When a debater tells a link story,

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 349

she or he is using narrative to explain how a link might play itself out in real life. Indebate, stories and scenarios are concrete examples of more abstract concepts andarguments. Stories and scenarios make arguments specific and tangible. (See also sce-nario.)

study counterplan A variety of generic counterplan that says that instead of acting inthe specified area of the proposition or the proposition team’s case, we should insteadstudy the problem to find the most desirable course of action.

subpoints Supporting points of arguments, often used to structure larger arguments.

subjectivism Any of a number of theories that identify material subjects as dependenton human beliefs and attitudes.

sufficiency principle Also known as a "sufficient condition," a circumstance in whicha cause is sufficient, in and of itself, to produce a particular effect.

take out Any argument in refutation that undermines, or "takes out," an opponent’sposition; usually refers to an argument that eliminates the link or relevance of an oppo-nent’s argument.

text Anything that signifies in any medium.

threshold The degree of change necessary to precipitate a particular outcome; usual-ly, the degree of change of an affirmative plan from current policy that will triggerundesirable consequences (disadvantages).

time frame The amount of time it takes for a particular condition, usually impacts, tooccur.

topicality The issue that establishes the relation of the affirmative plan to the languageof the topic; the proof that the affirmative argument is a representation of the resolu-tion. Also known as "T."

turn An argument that reverses the position of an opponent. Turns usually come in twokinds: link turns and impact turns. Link turns are arguments that attempt to reverse alink established by the other team. For example, a negative team might run a disad-vantage that said the plan hurt economic growth. The affirmative might argue a linkturn by saying that the affirmative actually helped economic growth. An impact turnis an argument that tries to reverse an established impact. In this same example, theaffirmative might argue that economic growth is actually bad, thereby turning theimpact of the disadvantage. Also known as a "turnaround," or, historically, as "turningthe tables."

uniqueness The claim that any benefit or cost is relevant to the advocacy of one side of adebate and can be used to decide favorably for that side or unfavorably against the otherside. Uniqueness is the part of a disadvantage that proves that your plan and only your plancould trigger the impacts. Affirmative advantages can also have a burden of uniqueness: Iftheir harm is being solved now, then there is no unique need for the plan.

utilitarianism Any of a variety of consequentialist views that claim to maximize goodor minimize evil.

vacuum test A versatile, if often silly, argument employed in topicality and link debatesthat asks the hypothetical question: "If we looked at the plan in a vacuum, would it ful-fill _____ condition?" In effects topicality, a vacuum test is used to determine if the planis topical in itself.

values Principles, acts, customs, and qualities regarded as desirable by individuals orgroups.

voting issues The arguments in a formal debate that are used to decide the ultimateoutcome of the debate.

350


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 350

351


weighing the issues A comparative analysis of all the issues in a debate; an evaluationof their relative probability and impact conducted in order to determine which aremost important, and thus, who wins. Rebuttalists usually weigh the issues, sayingthings like "Well, the plan may increase crime a little bit, but that’s a small price to payto safeguard our constitutional rights," thereby comparing the impact of the negative’scrime disadvantage to the impact of their racial profiling advantage.

whole resolution An argument in formal debate suggesting that the proposition sidemust responsibly maintain a proof for all the possible interpretations, not a singleinstance or set of examples of the proposition.

workability A condition whereby a proposal could actually operate to solve a problemif implemented as legislation.

zero-sum Circumstances in which the interests of one or more parties are advanced atthe direct and reciprocal expense of the interests of one or more other parties.

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 351

APPENDIX IV

SAMPLE DEBATE

TRANSCRIPTS

The following is a sample of the opening speeches of the first proposi-tion and first opposition speeches in a British format debate. Thespeeches are annotated to identify successful strategies, reveal omis-sions and missed opportunities, find strategic agreement, and criticallyinvestigate the debate’s substantive material, including argumentexamples. The beginning of the second proposition team’s case is alsoincluded as a model of argument extension of the opening propositionspeech. Points of information are included and evaluated. The annota-tions are bulleted and italicized.

The motion for the debate is “This House believes in affirmativeaction.”

First Speaker, First Proposition: “Mr. Chairman, adjudica-tors, ladies and gentlemen: hi. You may remember me bet-ter from such films as Surf Nazis Must Die and The Return ofthe Italian Stallion, Part 2. Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve beencalled out of retirement to try and demonstrate to all of thepeople at this table how to debate. If you listen carefully, themotion for debate is quite simply that this House believes inaffirmative action.

• A brief and entertaining introduction can be effective. This is brief.

352


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 352

353

APPENDIX IV: SAMPLE DEBATE TRANSCRIPT

Myself and my disheveled-looking partner want to definethe motion in very clear terms. Ladies and gentlemen, wewant to see the introduction of affirmative action to eradi-cate the inequality between the sexes, and in particular wewant to see the introduction of legislation to permit govern-ment and public agencies to require the imposition and theintroduction of quotas in training and employment in theprivate and the public sector only where there is clear,recurring, and evident statistical evidence that greatinequality exists in the particular areas where quotas aregoing to be introduced. And to further clarify, we’re notnecessarily and automatically talking about the introductionof a 50 percent quota. The exact quota for each individualsector, for each individual employment body, or each indi-vidual state body will be decided according to the circum-stances. Quotas of 20 percent may be necessary; quotas of50 percent may occasionally be necessary. In other words,it’s an open-ended process.”

• This is a clear definition of the motion, with sufficient expositionfor the opposition teams, judges, and audience to understand boththe identified problem and its solution. The proposed plan of actionis a bit ambiguous, which almost always succeeds in assisting theproposition debates. Opposition teams should take care to insist onfurther clarification of “open-ended processes,” as they are likely tochange throughout a debate, typically at the expense of the opposi-tion.

“We believe that legislation has to be introduced to give thestate the power and the authority to introduce this quotasystem. Norway, Sweden and the German Republic havealready done this. The UK refuses to do so. The EuropeanUnion refuses to do so. Many other countries such as theUSA operate half-hearted affirmative action policies. We’regoing whole hog. We say: Give the government this power.The reason why we’re doing this is quite simple: Equalitylegislation, which has been in the Western world for 30years, has simply failed to produce a satisfactory incomeand a satisfactory level of success. We don’t disagree that at

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 353

low levels, there is generally a progressive movementtowards equality in the Western world. At high levels, thereare enormous, built-in levels of inequality. Equality legisla-tion is not working.”

• This passage demonstrates that the problem is ongoing and signif-icant. This portion of the opening speech offers numerous examplesof the need for policy reform. In addition, several examples of suc-cessful implementation of the suggested affirmative action policyare included (“Norway, Sweden, and the German Republic”) asexpressions of solvency arguments. The speaker’s rhetoric is quite strong, with effective summaries formajor points.

Opposition speaker [rising]: “Point of information.”

First Speaker, First Proposition: “No thank you. Equalitylegislation is not producing the results that we are lookingfor. As a consequence,”


First Speaker, First Proposition: “In a moment. As a conse-quence, we think aggressive action needs to be taken. Weneed to drive the process forward, and my partner and I arearguing that we think quotas are the way to go.”

Opposition speaker: “Well, what happens if there aren’t thatmany women applying for the certain jobs?”

First Speaker, First Proposition: “Exactly. Thank you.That’s what’s known in theatrical terms, being an actor,ladies and gentlemen, as feeding a cue. You see, the entirepoint is that there is deeply embedded cultural deterrence toequality. People are being deterred for applying for certainposts. People are being deterred from moving towards cer-tain positions. We think the classic example, ladies and gen-tlemen…”

• This is an outstanding reply to a well-articulated point. Not only

354


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 354

355


does the speaker provide a reasonable answer to a question that is,more likely than not, on the minds of the judges and audience, butthe first proposition speaker does so in a manner that makes theopponent’s position seem trite and predictable (i.e., “feeding a cue”).

Opposition speaker [rises]: “Point of information.”

First Speaker, First Proposition: “No, thank you, sir. Theclassic example lies in the political process. We see a situa-tion where, to a large extent, representation of women inWestern democracies is down to around a level of 20 per-cent. In France, 11 percent, in the UK, 22 percent.Ridiculous, given the 50-50 split between men and women inthe population. What’s happening is that there is a glass ceil-ing, ladies and gentlemen – a system of values that acts as adeterrent. There is a culture in place that acts as a deterrenttowards people applying, to answer our opponent’s point. Itacts as a deterrent for people being promoted – it createsproblems of perception. And this is our key first argument,ladies and gentlemen. We are going to develop this further,but what we’re arguing is that you have a problem withvalue perception. The way to alter the value perception is toput the people in place. If you put the people in place, ladiesand gentlemen, if you push women, if you require certain aproportion of women running for political parties, a certainproportion of women at a high level of judicial office, athigh level political offices, then change will follow.”

• The use of statistical information effectively provides evidence tosupport a well-reasoned point.

“We’ve seen the classic case in the British Parliament, ladiesand gentlemen. For the first time in 150 years, there’s beenan attempt to rein back the old-boy all-night work and drinkculture of the British Parliament. Only since, in the last twoyears, have you had a high proportion of a female intake.Quite simply: You change the values, you provide role mod-els. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, [oppositionspeaker rises] you start challenging the culture. You see thepeople in place and change follows.”

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 355

• This is a good example of the use of an analogy to prove that a planof action would work in a different public policy sphere.

Opposition speaker: “But what you also see, for example, isan example where in the Scottish Parliament, the LaborParty adopted an affirmative action policy for their candi-dates. As you see people being able to put forward the back-lash of ‘Here are women who aren’t here because they’regood enough.’”

First Speaker, First Proposition: “Thank you. This is the‘backlash’ argument. What’s fascinating about the ‘backlash’argument is that in 1968, when the Equal Pay and RaceRelations legislation was introduced in Britain, the firstthing they said was: ‘Oh no, if you legislate for equality, thewhite males will be really annoyed.’ It happens every singletime. The backlash argument, ladies and gentlemen, is clas-sic nonsense. We’ve never seen a backlash in these circum-stances, ladies and gentlemen. What we’re arguing is thatyou need something to change perceptions and change val-ues. People need to be shown that women can do politics.Women can do politics equally well. It’s very, very impor-tant to realize that we’ve seen the introduction over manyyears of a gradualist approach, where it’ll be all right in theend, and you’ll have a gradual moving up of women throughthe process. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a key argument: Ido not see why this generation of female graduates or thenext three, four, or five generations of women need to laborunder a disadvantage caused by perception. I don’t see whyour female opponent and other people like her have to suf-fer from perceptions and disadvantages that I don’t have tosuffer. That’s the problem with the gradualist approach.There’s a price to be paid. Ladies and gentlemen, Norwayand Sweden quit quota policies in the parliamentaryprocess. But quotas for selection have the highest propor-tion of women in Parliament – over 50 percent – in Norway.They had the only female Prime Minister for a very, verylong time. The first three female leaders were fromScandinavia. This is tangible evidence that these policies

356


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 356

357


can work. And on those grounds, ladies and gentlemen, weurge you to support the motion.”

• Here is more “tangible evidence” that the proposed plan would work.At three distinct points in the opening address, the first speaker forthe proposition is able to provide examples or analogies to bolsterthe claim that a workable solution to a serious social injustice isreadily available. This is a fine presentation, with considerable evi-dence to support artfully executed points.

_____________________

First Speaker, First Opposition: “Thank you very much,ladies and gentlemen. It’s a pleasure to be representing theNew World in this debate here today. Maybe I’ll bring somenew ideas, some fresh ideas, to one that was very lacking onthe government side here today – a case that was basicallysubstantiated with examples from Norway, and offered verylittle about how changing numbers with their convolutedscheme will actually change perceptions in British society.That is what really has to be looked at today. I want to deal,first of all, with this point he brought up about the failure ofBritish society to produce results.”

• It is important to establish your own claim in the debate beforereacting to the points of the opposing side. A brief introduction fromthe first speaker for the opposition would make for considerablystronger presence in the debate. The judges and audience have lis-tened to the opening proposition speaker for seven minutes. Thatperson had an opportunity to develop a rapport with them. If youattack before making your own connection with the judges andaudience, you are likely to subtly antagonize them. You are still anunknown quantity and you will be assaulting a familiar.

Debaters need to accurately represent the positions of the other sideof the motion or risk losing their credibility. The opposition speak-er is duly interested in undermining the claims of the opening propo-sition speaker. Unfortunately, his inaccurate characterization ofthe first proposition speaker’s examples will hurt his own cause withjudges paying attention to the debate. The opening proposition

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 357

speaker had considerably more to say than an argument “basicallysubstantiated with examples from Norway.”

“He says that the system is not working. He comes before uswith a convoluted plan that says: ‘Well, basically, um, 50percent is good enough in some areas and not good in otherareas,’ and the question I have to ask is: Why is less parityin some areas better than in other ones?’ He has given usvery little evidence on that point.”

• This is the beginning of an effective rejoinder but the speaker doesnot commit a sufficient amount of time to fully analyze the propo-sition plan.

“What we should ask this House is: Why, in fact, are womenbeing dissuaded from these jobs? What he is trying to haveus believe on the government side of this House is that thisis some sort of culture of misogyny, some sort of culturewhere women are traditionally shuffled out of places ofprominent work within many industries. What we’re goingto decide upon, here on the opposition side, is that this is notthe deterrent for women going into these areas. In fact, a lotof other areas have to be looked at, and the governmentshould have looked at. The first is the issue of child care,and how in fact a lot of women…”

• The speaker for the opposition argues an alternatecausality. It isnot discrimination in hiring and promotion but discrimination inservices that is the cause of the problem. Affirmative action pro-grams, dedicated to employment hiring and promotion matters,would be of little consequence if there are other significant barriersto women’s employment.

Three government speakers [rising, raising hands in variousmanners]: “Point of information.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “Don’t have it, while incountries like Japan, women do have avenues to take prop-er child care, and when they can…”

358


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 358

359


Fourth government speaker [rising to join the other three]:“Point of information.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “Yes, one point.”

Government speaker: “You mentioned Japan, which ofcourse has the worst equality record of any industrializednation. The whole point is that things like child care will fol-low when the women are in place through quotas.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “We found that in areaslike the metropolitan police in London, quota systemsreduce the quality and reduce the ability of people to dotheir jobs properly.”

Two government speakers [rising]: “Point of information.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “No, sit down. The secondpoint that was brought up was this idea of backlash. He saysthere’s no backlash. But there is a backlash, I’m going toargue, on the quality of services…”

Government speaker [rising]: ‘Point of information.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “which are provided topeople in areas. I’m going to give you an example. Hebrought up the example of Norway, with its 50 percent par-ity. Not at this time. In a little bit. I’m going to give you theexample of the Indian Parliament – another part of theworld where people are fighting for the better treatment ofwomen. There was a 50 percent gender parity proposal thatwas put forth. And what happened? There were inferiorcandidates put forth, there was…”

• At this stage of the debate the first speaker for the opposition is bar-raged with points of information and, to a significant degree, thespeaker loses control of the floor. The fatal error? In replying topoints of information, the opposition speaker says, “Not at thistime.” In fact, the same line is delivered seven times. The speakerless frequently says “No,” or “No, thank you.” The problem is that

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 359

no one on the opposing side knows which later time is acceptable.The opposing speakers continue to rise to a point of information,only to be repeatedly told “Not at this time.” But every subsequentmoment of the speech is a different time.

If speakers want to control the floor, they must say “No” to pointsof information and avoid saying “Not at this time.”

Government speaker [rising]: “Point of information.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “Not at this time. Therewas voter backlash, voter apathy. There was a rolling backof the gains…”

Government speaker [rising]: “On this point, sir.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “…that women had gainedin India simply because these things…”

[A second government speaker rises, reaches out hand.]

First Speaker, First Opposition: “…weren’t allowed to bedone incrementally. No, not at this time. Legitimacy in lib-eral democracy is fundamental, and to assault that funda-mental principle of legitimacy in liberal democracy by giv-ing an uneven playing field…”

Two government speakers [rising, hands outstretched]:“Sir.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “…to level the playing fieldis fundamentally offensive.”

[A third government speaker rises]

First Speaker, First Opposition: “I’ll take your point.”

Government speaker: “Do you accept, sir, that the verybacklash you talk about comes from the very people who tryto keep women out of the workplace to begin with? What

360


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 360

361


we’re trying to do is challenge that.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “What you can do is youcan challenge it, but you have to ask yourself what the bestway is to challenge it. By simply saying to a Parliament thatyou can’t have the best people doing their jobs, that youcan’t have the best people changing values incrementally,that is fundamentally wrong and that is what we standagainst. What I want to explore, and what my partner and Iare going to explore on the first opposition side here today,is the fundamental offensiveness of fighting discriminationwith discrimination. Pardon the rather clichéd examplehere, but if Martin Luther King were here in this debatetoday, he’d be rolling in his grave while he was watching thedebate.” [general laughter]

Government speaker [rising]: “Point of information, sir.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “No, no, no. What I wantto deal with here is the fact that many organizations, espe-cially in North America, such as the American CivilLiberties Union, and the Jesse Jackson-led RainbowCoalition, have in fact stood against the fundamentallyoffensive principle that in a race case…”


First Speaker, First Opposition: “No, I know your case cen-ters on gender, but…. No, not at this time.”

Government speaker [rising]: “Point of…”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “No, not at this time. Whatthey are saying is that it should be based not on the contentof one’s character but instead on the content of one’strousers, or…”

Government speaker [rising]: “Sir?”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “…the content of one’s

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 361

skin, and we fundamentally stand against this. Not at thistime. Because what it does, in sociological terms, is pigeon-hole members of society.”


First Speaker, First Opposition: “Not at this time. It definesmembers of society by the color of their skin, by what sexthey are…”


First Speaker, First Opposition: “…and not by their abili-ties to do their job.”

Government speaker [rising]: “Point of information, sir?”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “No. And if you want tobuild a society in which women, or blacks, or any othergroup is looked upon on even grounds, you have to do thatwithout putting them in a pigeonhole.”


First Speaker, First Opposition: “Surely we’ve had enoughof that in society. What it does is impede integration andproper community-building. On that point, madam?”

Government speaker: “Sir, are we not pigeonholing at pres-ent when we say that men can do certain jobs and womencan do certain other jobs, and we’re not going to do anythingabout it?”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “Society’s not saying that.It’s saying that women can do the jobs. They’re invited to,but society is not striving and should not be striving to havethe constructs in place to allow that to be attainable. Youcannot come up and tell me that people who seek office, whoare working these long hours, jogging between Westminsterand Edinburgh, have the proper kind of child care services

362


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 362

363


to allow for that.”

Government speaker: “On that point.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “You have to see that infact a community is built not by putting people into cate-gories but is based upon leveling the playing field, incre-mentally offering the right kind of ways of getting peopleinvolved in the public sector. On that point?”

• This is a potentially dangerous position for the opposition. Thespeaker seems to support an incremental movement in the directionof that which the proposition has advocated in the debate, in otherwords, a slow-motion version of the case. This claim seems to acceptthe underlying principles of the proposition case but, with incre-mental rather than systemic change, will take decades to achieve thesame goal.

Government speaker: “What you seem to be saying, sir, isthat women can’t go into work because there are inadequa-cies in things like child care. Who’s pigeonholing now?”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “I’m not pigeonholing any-one. I’m just identifying one of the realities out there forwomen. It’s fundamentally different, I think, to offerwomen child care than to say: ‘You know what? We’re goingto allow you a position in government because you happento fit one of our number categories.’ And we’re not so surewhat those number categories are…”


First Speaker, First Opposition: “…on this governmentside, because they say: ‘You know what? For politics, 50 per-cent might be good enough in Norway, but for a police forceor for firefighters, they might not be able to make the phys-ical requirements, so we might have to have a ten percentquota there.’ What they’re doing is not only pigeonholing.They’re pigeonholing within different professions. I’d askwhy it isn’t 50 percent for everything. Can they answer

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 363

that?”

Government speaker [rising]: “Point of information.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “Yes?”

Government speaker: “Sir, you talk about number cate-gories. Is it just a coincidence that 78 percent of British MPsat the moment are men? This is a de facto number categoryworking at the moment. You’ve got to change the factual cir-cumstances, sir.”

First Speaker, First Opposition: “Yes. But changing the fac-tual circumstances while compromising the fundamentalprinciples of liberal democracy is not the right way to goabout it. Margaret Thatcher, believe it or not, for all of theglory that she brought to Britain, showed that women canassume positions of leadership, that women do not have tofight a numbered quota system to get there, but can achievebased on the fact of their leadership abilities. And that’swhat we stand for on the opposition side here today. Thiskind of wishy-washy, let’s bend the numbers to suit our pur-poses, is fundamentally wrong. Fighting discriminationthrough discrimination is not the way to solve our problems.Society needs fewer categories, not more. We can achieveprogress by allowing people to work out things on their ownterms. Thus we fundamentally oppose this case. Thank youvery much.”

• The first speaker for the opposition ends the speech with a powerfulconclusion. This is quite necessary here, as too many of the goodopposition points were lost or made incoherent in a maelstrom ofpoints of information.

First Speaker, Second Proposition: “I find it quite bizarrethat this side’s case is accused of being simplistic when –let’s face it, the only real explanation by the opposition ofwhy women are not favored in employment is that thereisn’t adequate child care. I’ve been writing down everything

364


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 364

365


they’ve said, Mr. Speaker, and that’s about all they’ve said interms of explaining the employment gap between male andfemale. What we’ve identified is a realistic problem whichthey’ve then taken and said: ‘Well, we have to oppose youbecause we’re the opposition’ without actually giving us anysubstantive arguments that show why our system doesn’twork. What I’m going to try and do is this speech extendingthe debate into the second half is, first of all, go back overthe whole idea of how you challenge the existing discrimi-nation. Do you do it from the inside or from the outside? I’llgive you my perspective on that. Secondly, this whole back-lash argument – I’m just going to clear that up. Then third-ly, I’m going to move the debate on to look at the whole con-cept of the meritocracy, because we think that’s what theythink it should be all about. What we’re going to show isthat the meritocracy doesn’t exist. It doesn’t evolve natural-ly. You have to put means in place to allow that meritocra-cy to flourish.”

• The first speaker for the second proposition establishes a clearorganizational structure for the speech, indicating that there will bean extension of the opening proposition case (fulfilling one of thisspeaker’s responsibilities in the debate) as well as seriously engag-ing the two main points of refutation from the first oppositionteam’s stand on the floor. This is an effective tactic, as it educatesjudges about your role in the debate and frames the presentation (itsets expectations for the performance that the speaker will undoubt-edly meet).


First Speaker, Second Proposition: “No, thank you. So, firstof all, the whole concept of pigeonholing, they are arguingon this side of the House that the best way to change prob-lems within an employment environment is from the out-side. They specifically said that you don’t get any benefitsfrom aggressively fighting for social change from within.The point of information that I gave earlier was from lastweek where a group of female speech therapists were given2.5 billion pounds because they aggressively fought from the

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 365

inside. Had they not been in the profession, there wouldhave been no challenge to the current system. That’s theargument we use on this side of the House.”


First Speaker, Second Proposition; “Can I go for a bitlonger? Then I’ll take your point. So what we say is that youcan’t just say that ours is a bad system without telling uswhy. The rebuttal of the Norwegian example was: ‘Well,who likes Norway? They’ve got a crap football team, and theEurovision song contest isn’t going to go that well for them.’Well, ladies and gentlemen, it’s just not deep enough on thisside of the House. So we say challenging from within getsresults, and they’re not providing us with any results fromtheir approach. Ms. Roach?”

Opposition speaker: “You’re totally contradicting your ownpolicy here. What you’re doing is not proposing to change aprofession from within, but to impose restrictions on it fromthe outside. How is that change from within?”

First Speaker, Second Proposition: “Because it challengestwo levels. The first point is that people refuse to applybecause of the male yahoo atmosphere that they don’t feelcomfortable with. You say that there is another issue of nochild-care availability. We say that you can do both with thissystem because it gets women into the workplace who willfight for the next round of changes that they acquire to thenallow further women to get into that same workplace. Thesecond point is their whole issue of the backlash. Who is thebacklash, ladies and gentlemen? These white, angry men?Who are they? They are the very people who want womenkicked out of the workplace. They are the very people whowant blacks kicked out of the workplace.”

Opposition speaker [rising]: “Point.”

First Speaker, Second Proposition: “No, thank you.”

366


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 366

367


• The opposition side may be correct here. The argument from the sec-ond proposition team’s opening speaker seems to contradict some ofthe basic principles of the opening proposition team and, paradoxi-cally, support the claims of the opening opposition speaker. Theargument that inside movement of affirmative action may beappropriate does not seem to extend the original proposition case.An extension in the second proposition presentation should be con-sistent with the first proposition interpretation of the motion. And itshould not be conflated with either the rhetoric or substance of theopening team for the opposition.

What follows are the first two speeches from an American parliamen-tary debate on the motion “This House should return the goods.”

1.

Prime Minister Constructive: “Thank you very much. Ibelieve that debate is a vigorous discourse in which weshould discuss important and controversial issues. Keepingthat in mind we turn to the topic: “This House should returnthe goods.” We’re talking about return of stolen culturalartifacts – art objects. We have a worldwide phenomenon ofsystematic theft by imperialist nations of cultural artifacts,and they are now being held with impunity. What we wouldadvocate, on the side of the government, is that these arti-facts should be returned when we can identify the rightfulowners. And so, there are several reasons why we wouldadvocate this issue. The first one is that we need to movebeyond Western conceptions of law, because the currentway the legal system works is that we allow countries to acttyrannically. We allow them to steal cultural artifacts, to usetheir political or physical power to prevent their return, andthen, after a certain period of time, then they just say ‘Well,now the statute of limitations gives us immunity on thisissue, and we’re no longer liable, and you can’t have them

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 367

back now.’ So what we need to do is create a specific exemp-tion to the statute of limitations that would allow for thereturn of cultural artifacts. We’ve had this tyrannical actionwith the stealing of the Parthenon frieze, with Nazi art,with Native American artifacts, and we would advocate thereturn of these as well as other stolen cultural artifacts.

“It goes beyond that. What we also need to do is establish anappropriate relationship between states. The theft of cultur-al artifacts is a way to assert cultural dominance by onecountry over another country. In fact, this is what theBritish Museum is. The British Empire went out around theworld and collected … well, collected is a nice way to say it.One might aptly say that they stole cultural artifacts fromaround the world and now their culture is able to subsumeall other cultures – within their culture, they subsume allother cultures and that makes them the superior culture.And only with the return of these artifacts…” [Oppositionspeaker rises]

Opposition speaker: “Point of information.”

Prime Minister: “Hold on, I’ll get to you in one second.Only with the return of these artifacts can we start downthe path of an equitable relationship between states. Yes?”

Opposition speaker: “What about cases where the rightfulowner is unclear?”

Prime Minister: “Well, it’s unclear, Andrea. It’s unclear. AsI said, we needed to return these when the rightful ownercould be determined. Now, if the rightful owner can bedetermined, then it wouldn’t be unclear. I think in the exam-ples that I’ve given, such as the case of the Parthenon frieze,the ownership is very clear. There is historical record estab-lishing what happened. In fact, Lord Elgin sold theParthenon frieze to the British Museum. In the case of Naziart, the Nazis were very organized. This caused manydeaths, but also resulted in specific records about who stolewhat art. These records are just now becoming available.

368


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 368

369


That’s why we need to provide for an exemption within thestatute of limitations to allow for the return of these arti-facts. When we cannot establish a rightful owner we will, ofcourse, not return them. That’s an interesting point youbring up.

“Before I got off on that tangent of Andrea’s very pointedquestion, I was talking about why we need to establish anequitable relationship between states. The reason why is ifwe can establish an equitable relationship between states,we can increase peace, stability, and harmony betweennations. Just as if you can establish a more equitable rela-tionship with your brother, you start fighting less if he givesyou back all of the toys he has stolen. It’s the same sort ofidea on a larger and more important scale.

“The last important reason for the return of cultural arti-facts is that we need to move beyond our own ideas aboutwhat the role of cultural artifacts actually is. What we needto do is look at an example of one cultural artifact in theUSA, which would be the Declaration of Independence.What do we do with the Declaration of Independence?”

[Opposition speaker rises, crosses arms]

“We stick it under a piece of plastic laminate, we enclose itin gas, we put two armed guards beside it, and then weinstall a three million dollar video camera created byNASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory to make sure that no onesteals it. It must, by the way, be one hell of a camera for thatprice. In any case [gestures to standing opposition speaker],and you’re going to get called on any minute now, so you canstop shifting around…”

[Standing opposition speaker appears to jog, almost imper-ceptibly, in place]

“We come to believe that anyone who fails to take thesekinds of precautions is failing in their duty to respect cul-tural artifacts, just as [gestures to standing opposition

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 369

speaker again] Nate is failing in his duty to respect me as aspeaker by doing this sort of little dance [turns to opposi-tion speaker]. But I’ll take your question anyway.”

Opposition speaker: “So what should we do with theDeclaration of Independence? Everyone should be able totouch it and fold it and write on it? Tell me: What should wedo?”

Prime Minister: “No, I’m saying that what we do with theDeclaration of Independence is fine, but we should recog-nize, in fact, that this treatment frequently destroys the reli-gious, cultural, or political significance that other, distinctcultures place upon their cultural perspective. Look at theIgbu tribe, who deliberately allow their objects to decaybecause they need to preserve the desire to re-create. Infact, they value deterioration as an aesthetic virtue. There’snothing wrong with our aesthetic perspective, that we wantto preserve this from decay, but we should also respect otheraesthetic perspectives because your aesthetic perspectivedictates how you view yourself and how you view others. Itgoes down to the fundamental consideration of what youview as beautiful. Once you allow people to co-opt the abil-ities of other people to make these critical determinations,once you take an Igbu artifact and place it under a glass caseand destroy that distinct aesthetic perspective, you strike atthe very heart of what it means to be human. So to preventthat and to correct for that, I would urge a proposition bal-lot. Thank you very much.”

_________________

First Opposition Speaker: “I’d like to thank everyone forcoming. Let’s talk about the ridiculous assumptions behindthis case. First of all, they say that we’re only interested inreturning these things, quote, ‘when the rightful owner canbe determined.’ We ask them ‘When can that happen?’ Theysay: ‘We provide very good examples of that. We’ve provid-ed the example of the Parthenon frieze and the example of

370


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 370

371


Nazi art.’ Well, the Parthenon frieze was built using stolenfunds and marble that Athens actually appropriated fromother countries in the year circa 400 B.C. So who owns theParthenon frieze? Is it the people who actually owned theobjects that were amalgamated into the Parthenon? Or is itthe Greeks, who stole those things and used them to buildthe Parthenon? Let’s look at the example of Nazi art. Let’ssay that the Nazis are stealing several things from the muse-ums of the Vichy government in France. Which were, inturn, stolen from the Germans during the wars over theFrench Revolution. Who owns those pieces of art?”

Government speaker, rising: “Will you take a point?”

Opposition speaker: “The simple fact is that it’s not as sim-ple as looking at the last time an artifact was stolen becausethe history of cultural artifacts is one of theft, and you can’tavoid this. There is no clear-cut case, as Judd would haveyou believe, in any situation where the rightful owner can bedetermined. It’s never like their example of some kid steal-ing another kid’s shoes. On that point?”

Government speaker: “So do you deny that there are explic-it records of Nazi art that trace back the legitimate own-ers?”

Opposition speaker: “No, I’m not denying that. I’m sayingthat there are legitimate records tracing back legitimateownership in the sense that that legitimate ownership was,in fact, still a stolen cultural artifact. There is never any artartifact that is produced without theft. If you think abouteven the most basic art artifact, it is produced using thelabor of a lower class in order to sustain a class of elite intel-lectuals and artists who then use that elitism to create theseart objects. Art is a world of theft, and it’s implicated intheft, and you cannot blindly assume, as the governmenthas, that this does not happen.”

[Government speaker rises]

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 371

Opposition speaker: “Sit down, please. Now, then they say:‘Well, we’re viewing art wrongly.’ We ask for an example ofthis. They offer the example of the Declaration ofIndependence. We say: ‘What should we do with theDeclaration of Independence?’ They say: ‘Well, actually,that’s fine, but the problem is the Igbu tribe.’ Let’s look atthe Igbu tribe. Now, I don’t know too much about them, butjust based on what the speaker said, if the Igbu tribe createsthings and they like those things to decay, then why are theyobjecting to us taking those things and putting them into ourmuseums?”

Government speaker, rising with hand outstretched: “Onthat point.”

Opposition speaker: “Clearly, they have no investment inhaving these things for their own personal use because theywant them to decay. Please sit down. Now, here are twoquestions. Number one: Are they talking about art? Arethey interested in the benefits of art? If they are, they needto realize that there’s no one context to art. Art can meanmany different things to many different people. Justbecause you don’t belong to the Igbu tribe doesn’t mean thatyou can’t appreciate them from your own aesthetic perspec-tive.”

Government speaker: “Point of information.”

Opposition speaker: “No, thank you. Sit down.”

Government speaker, taking his seat: “You don’t have to getso upset.”

Opposition speaker: “Okay, I know I don’t have to getupset, but how about you stay sitting for more than 30 sec-onds?”

[Government speakers both stand up]

Opposition speaker: “That’s great. Please, both of you, sit

372


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 372

373


down. Secondly, they say: ‘Well, we need to move beyondWestern conceptions of law.’ But where have they gottenthese very mystical and Eastern conceptions? From theinvolvement with and investigation of these art artifacts.That’s what gives them these other perspectives. That’s whatallows them to make these arguments. Additionally, youneed to consider the care of this art. It’s a simple fact thatmost of these societies do not have the ability to maintainthis art because they are developing societies and, quitefrankly, they have other priorities. Look at the Parthenonfrieze. The two marbles that have been left on theParthenon frieze are in a state of extreme decay, whereasthe Parthenon marbles that are in the British Museum arein a state of remarkable artistic effectiveness. Or, they couldbe talking about the people. They may not want to help theart: They may instead want to help the people.”

[Government speaker rises]

Opposition speaker: “Please sit down. Let’s talk about repa-rations in terms of war. They say that when there’s a warand people steal art, we have an obligation to return thatart. But there’s a limited amount of political capital in termsof reparations. It’s not like everyone in Germany is runningaround stumbling all over themselves to pay billions of dol-lars back to the French. That’s not a movement in Germany.In fact, it happens only with great amounts of political cap-ital and at a tremendous political expense. You need to askyourself: What is the most effective use of that political cap-ital? Is it to restore art objects, something that the top onepercent of the top one percent of the people use, create, andexperience? Or is it in industrial, environmental, and med-ical reparations – things that affect the lives of the vastmajority of these countries?

“All that their proposal does is extinguish these symbols ofimperialism. They say, and this is a quote: ‘We need toestablish an appropriate relationship between states.’ Iagree. But you don’t simply do that by closing your eyes anderasing all of the history of imperialism. There is a system

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 373

that exists right now whereby certain countries, mostnotably Western countries, are far more powerful thancountries around the world. One of the major signs of thatpower disparity is the fact that these artifacts exist in loca-tions other than where they were produced. When you movethose artifacts back, you don’t change the situation. Youdon’t make those countries equal. Don’t let them fool youinto believing that. What you do is just eliminate the sign ofthat inequality. You eliminate the fact that all of us can, forexample, talk about this. Why is this a debatable issue?Because we have been made aware that there is inequality ininternational relations through the existence of these artobjects in disparate locations. When you move the artobjects back, you will deny the same lesson to other people.After the objects are returned there will be no sign ofinequality, no sign for us to determine whether we should bechanging our policies as they relate to the rest of the world.

For all these reasons, we beg to oppose.”

374


AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 374

375

Abbreviating notes, 261Actors, alternate, 170–174Ad hominem, fallacy of, 65Advancement, 71–72Advantages, counterplanning

out, 175–177Advantages, germane to

plan, 176Advantages in case construc-

tion, 79Adversarial actions, 244–245Advertising, argumentation

and, 69–70Affirmed motions, 29Agendas, refutation, 92Agent counterplans,

158–162Agent of action, attacking and

defending, 159–160, 162Agreeable points of informa-

tion, 213–215Agreement, establishing,

213–215Ahistorical critique argu-

ments, 202Alden, Raymond, 18–19

Alliance credibility, 129–130Alternate actors, 170–174Alternate causality, 105American parliamentary for-

mat, 79–80Analogies, 36–37, 61–62Ancillary advantages, plan of

action, 98–99Anthropocentrism, 202–203Anti-intellectualism, 45–47Appeals, types of, 64–65, 70Argumentation, indirect, 20Argumentative turn, 107Argumentsadvancing through points of

information, 216–220from analogy, 61–62analyzing, 59–64anticipation of, 117, 217–220assumptions and, 184–185from authority, 63better evidenced or rea-

soned, 75breadth of, 116, 119–120claims and, 53combining, 145

concession, 104–105consistent with experience,

76disagreeing with, 74–75dropping and discontinuing,

181, 263empirically proven, 75establishing foundation,

88–89evaluating (Judging),

268–269from example, 60–61expressed significance, 76grouping, 114–116history of, 52–59impact strategies, 116instead arguments, 150insulting remarks and, 238minimizing, 106–107misstatements and, 239naked, 19, 22off-case, 104permutations, 179–182points of order and, 236–238practical theory, 69–76reasoning by cause, 62

INDEX

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 375

376

INDEX

refuting, 185rephrasing, 74research, 117restricting, 92selection of, 274separating, 145–147by sign, 62–63solvency (partial), 273structuring opposition to the

case, 110–116tagging, 113–114theory of, 51–52Toulmin model, 57–59turning, 107undermining legitimacy of,

210–211undermining opponents,

220–221uniqueness, 136–137Aristotle, persuasion and, 53Aristotle, proofs and, 55–59Articulation, public speaking

and, 242Artistic and non-artistic

proofs, 53Assumptions, 184–185,

203–204Attitude, points of information

and, 223–225Authority, appeals to and

arguments from, 63, 65Awards, tournament prepara-

tion and, 288

Backing, 57–59Bait and switch, 168, 214Ballots, writing and availability,

276, 299Bankrupt interpretations, 42Barracking, defined, 251Begging the question, 65Brainstorming, 143–145British format, 13–16, 80–81Burden of proof, 41,

141–142, 149Burden sharing, 119–120Business confidence,

130–131, 137

Case argumentscase proper, construction of,

95–102construction, 79–102design, critique arguments

and, 204development, 121–124extension, 25–26position, challenging, 103preparing, 121–124scenario, example, 33–34statements, 18types of, 99–101, 103Case proper, constructing,

95–102Case-specific counterplan,

174–175Categories, motions and,

288–291Causal arguments, 62, 105,

128–132Causal relationships, 62Chair, 11Choice, forming, 151–155Claimsabout, 57–59arguments and, 53phrased and structure, 147value, 118Claims of significance, refut-

ing, 106Clash, 19–21, 72, 146, 158,

261Closed resolutions and

motions, 32–33, 289Color coding notes, 263–264Combining arguments, 145Common cause fallacy, 62,

68

Comparatively advantageousarguments, 273

Competition, defined,151–156

Complex question, fallacy of,67

Composition, fallacy of, 67Comprehension, points of

information and,212–213

Comprehensive preparation,84–85

Concessions, strategic, 260,274

Conclusion, drawing, 75Condition implementation,

167–168, 171Conditional counterplans,

181Consensus deliberation, 275Consensus judging, 15Consequences, evaluating,

254–255Consideration, point of order

and, 236–238Consistency, topicality argu-

ments and, 41Conspiracy theories, 64–65Constructive speeches, 10Consultation counterplans,

170–174Conventions, informal, 9Cooperative counterplans,

155–156Cost-benefit calculation, 94,

123–124Counterclaims, 72Counterexamples, 108Counterplanscase-specific, 174–175conditional, 181consultation, 170–174delay, 166–168exclusionary, 172, 177–178multiple, 180

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 376

377

INDEX

opposition strategy, 149–182plan-specific, 174–175purpose of, 181states, 161–162sub-national, 161–162text, 151–2types of, 157–178Countrplanning out advan-

tages, 175–177Court credibility, 132–133Credibility, 86–89, 211,

247–248Crisis of temporality,

208–209Criteria, decision-making, 94Critical listening, 260–261Critical mass, use of, 138Critiquing opposition strategy,

183–204Current events, 119

Data, 57–59Debate, framing, 91–95Debate motions, 288–289Debates, judging, 265–278Decision making, judges and,

93–95, 267–269Deductive reasoning, 60Defensive arguments, 70Delay counterplans, 166–168Development, language of,

188–193Dictionaries, 126Direct refutation, 20–21Disadvantageanalyzing, 140answering, 140–147arguing, 152–153defined, 128links, answering, 141to the permutation, 161structure of, 129–139Disclosure, judges post

debate, 277–278

Division, fallacy of, 61, 67,204

Double solvency, 162Double turn, 143

Emotions, appeals to, 65Enabling opponents,

218–220End game, anticipating, 93Enthymeme proof, 57–59,

69–70Equivocation, fallacy of, 66Ethics, 120–121Ethos, 54Evaluations, tournaments

and, 300Evidence, 120–121,

124–126Examples, nullifying, 108Exclusionary counterplans,

172, 177–178Exclusive language, 247Exclusivity, mutual, 153Extended analogy, interpreta-

tion, 36–38External net benefits,

170–171Eye contact, public speaking

and, 243–244

Fact case, 99Facts, 52Facts, evaluating with points

of information, 215–216Factual claims, 30Fallacies, 64–70, 204False cause, fallacy of, 66False dichotomy, fallacy of, 67False evidence, 120–121Filler words, 245–246Financial shortages, 139First opposition, 13–16First proposition, 13–16

First Speaker, FirstOpposition, 25

First Speaker, FirstProposition, 25

First Speaker, Opposition,19–21

First Speaker, Proposition,18–19

First Speaker, SecondOpposition, 26

First Speaker, SecondProposition, 25–26

Flowing, 73–74, 113–114,261–262, 264

Flowing, judges and, 271Follow-on statements, 207Force, appeals to, 64Formats, American and

British, 10, 13–16Framing the debate, 91–95Fundamental assumptions:

criticizing, 191–195

Gatekeeper argument, 91Generalization, hasty, 66Generic counterplans, 157Genocidal interpretation of

motion, 90Germane advantages, 176Germane issues, directing,

209Gesticulation, points of infor-

mation and, 225–226Government team, 10, 21Greater advantages,

123–124Grouping arguments,

114–116Groupthink, 82–83

Harassment policy, American,27–28

Harm inflicted, 252

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 377

378

INDEX

Harms, misidentification of,199–200

Harms, weighing, 194Hasty generalizations, 66Heckling, 226–230, 248–251Historical uniqueness, 142Humor, 226–230, 248–250Hyper-structure presentation

strategy, 111, 113–115Hypothetical future, 96

Ignorance, appeals to, 64–65Immediate possibility, 138Impactdebating, 143disadvantage argument, 135evaluating, 162, 251–257,

253–255explaining, 257–259independent and dependent,

255–256strategies, 116, 128, 140Impact take-outs, 71Impact turn, 107–108, 143Implementation, conditional,

167–168, 171Implementation, opposition

expectations about,168–169

Inadequate information,164–165

Inclusive language, 247Incoherent interpretation of

motion, 90Inconsistencies, values and,

195–196Indirect argumentation, 20Inductive reasoning, 60Informal conventions, 9Information, diversity of,

119–120Inherency, 96Inherency arguments, chal-

lenging, 105, 109–110

Instructional seminars, 280Insulting remarks, 238Internal links, 135, 140Interpretationbankrupt, 42disagreeing with, 39Extended analogy, 36–38literal model of, 35, 38metaphors and, 37–38opposition and, 40parametric model of, 35–36,

38parliamentary points and,

205–206reasonable, 89Interpretations of the motion,

examples by type, 89–90Introduction speech, effec-

tiveness and, 86–89Issues, weighing, 127–128,

162

Judges, 11, 223, 266–267Judging, 15, 265–266, 271,

283

Keyword identification, 124Knifing, 26

Language of development,189–193

Lead OppositionConstructive (LOC), 11

Lead Opposition Rebuttal(LOR), 11

Leader of the Opposition,19–21

Leader of the OppositionRebuttal, 23–24

Leading statements, 217Legal issues, tournaments

and, 294–295

Limited preparation motion,288–289

Linksanalyzing, 140, 219–220defined, 135internal, 135resolutions or motions,

32–33take-outs, 71turn arguments, 107,

141–142Listening skills, 260–261Literal model of interpretation,

35, 38Logical construction, chal-

lenging, 220–221Logical fallacies, 61, 64–69Logos, 54LOR (Lead Opposition

Rebuttal), 11

Maniacal interpretation ofmotion, 90

Manner (style), judging and,274–275

Mass, undifferentiated, 110Matter (substance), judging

and, 274–275Matters of significance,

96–97Member of Government

(MG), 11, 21Member of Opposition,

21–23Metaphors, interpretation

and, 37–38MG (Member of

Government), 11Microphones, public speak-

ing and, 247Misstatements, 239Modality, 57–59Modelscase preparation, 121–124

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 378

379

INDEX

case scenario, 33–34counterclaims, 72–76critique of development,

192–193extended analogy, 36–37fallacies, 64–69interpreting the motion, literal

model, 35interpreting the motion, para-

metric model, 35–36main arguments, opening

speaker, 19, 84metaphors, 37opposition arguments,

110–114, 129–134,140–147

prep time, 84resolution of fact, 30syllogism, 54topicality arguments, proposi-

tion team, 40–41Toulmin’s model, 59–60value objection, 194–195,

200–201Most grievous error, 256Motion, 10Motionsabout, 29–30affirmed, 29analyzing, 34–49announcing, 12–14drafting, 291–294interpreting the motion,

89–91see also ResolutionsMovement, transitions and,

243Multiple counterplans, 180Mutual exclusivity, 153

Naked arguments, 22Net benefits, 123–124,

151–153, 159No link arguments, 141–142

Non sequiturs, fallacy of, 68Nonverbal communication,

public speaking and, 242Note taking skills, 260–281Numbers affected, 252

Off-case arguments, 104,128–135

Offensive arguments, 41, 70,143

On-case arguments, 103Open invitational tourna-

ments, 280Open resolutions and

motions, 289Opponents, eye contact and,

243–244Opportunity cost, 153–155Opposition, 10Opposition block, 80Opposition expectations

about implementation,168–169

Opposition interpretation, 40Opposition Rebuttalist,

23–24Opposition, Second speaker,

21–23Opposition strategy, counter-

plans, 149–182Opposition strategy, cri-

tiquing, 183–204Opposition strategy, disad-

vantages, 127–48Opposition teams, British for-

mat, 13–16Oppositional stance, 83Optimizing a solution, 164

Parallel debates, 14Parametric model of interpre-

tation, 35–36Parliamentary convocations,

31–32Partial solvency arguments,

mistakes judging, 273Partner, relationship with,

244–245Pathos, 54, 257Performance, public speaking

and, 241–247Permutationsagent counterplans, 162arguing, 155–156, 179–182severance, 179Persuasion, 53–55, , 69–70Plans, 98–99Plan-specific counterplan,

174–175PMC (Prime Minister

Constructive), 11PMR (Prime Minister

Rebuttal), 11Podiums, public speaking

and, 247POI. seePoints of informationPoint not well taken, 236Point of order, 235–236Point well taken, 235–236Points of informationabout, 14–15, 206–233purposes of, 212–221refusing to take, 208–209responding to, 230–232rule of three, 221–223strategic uses of, 209–212Points of order, 233–238Points of personal privilege,

233–4, 238–240Points, parliamentary,

205–240Points, types of parliamen-

tary, 205–206Points under consideration,

236–238Policies, 52Policy case, 95Policy resolutions, 30

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 379

380

INDEX

Post debate disclosure,277–278

Post hoc ergo propter hoc,fallacy of, 66

Post hoc fallacy, 62Power wording, 246–247Predictive uniqueness, 142Prejudiced bias, 247Preparation time, 10, 81–85,

297Pre-prepared cases,

122–124Presumptions, 149Prime Minister Constructive

(PMC), 11, 18–19Prime Minister Rebuttal

(PMR), 11, 24–25Probability and risk, evaluat-

ing, 252–253Problems, elements of, 96Problem-solution models,

127Procedures, American,

10–13Proofs, 55–59Propositionaffirmative or offensive argu-

ments, 41defined, 10first speaker, 21opposition to the case,

103–110second speaker, 21topicality arguments and,

40–47Proposition claims, opposi-

tion and, 20–21Proposition clause, construc-

tion of, 86–102Proposition Rebuttalist,

24–25Proposition teams, British for-

mat, 13–16Propositions, about, 30Protected time, 206

Protectionism, 131–132Public speaking, 241–247

Qualifying tournaments,279–280

Qualitative significance,106–107

Qualitative significance ofarguments, 272

Quantitative significance,106–107

Questions, points of informa-tion, 207

Quotes, 125–126, 247

Ranking, 275Reasoning methodsfrom analogy, 61–62by cause, 62good and bad logic, 64rhetorical methods, 57–59by sign, 62–63from testimony, 63see also ArgumentsRebuttal, 57–59Rebuttal speeches, 10Rebuttal speeches, points of

order and, 236Rebuttals, new arguments in,

236–238Rebuttals, skills and,

259–260Red herrings, 65–66Reference texts, 126Refutation, 22, 71–72direct, 20–21, 103techniques of, 113–116Refutation, fallacy of, 67–68Refutation model, 261Refutation, note-taking and,

261Registration packets, tourna-

ments and, 288

Reinterpretation, thinking and,200

Relatively open and closedmotions, 32–33

Remaining time, 12Repetition, 24Research issues, 117–121Resolutionsabout, 10, 30creating, 291–294of fact, 30guides for creating, 291–294linkable, 32–33open and closed, 32–33of policy, 30–31scenarios, 32–33of value, 30see also MotionsResources, newspapers,

119–120Responsibilities, speakerAmerican format, 16–25British format, 25–26Restricting argumentation, 92Results, tournaments and,

297–300Risk and probability, evaluat-

ing, 272–273Rule of three, 221–223Rules, violation of, 234–238

Scales, ranking, 275–276Scapegoating, fallacy of,

67–68Scarecrow (straw man) falla-

cy of, 67Scenario construction, 33–34Scheduling, tournaments

and, 283–286Scores. seeTabulations, tour-

namentsScripting, 218Second opposition, 13–16Second proposition, 13–16

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 380

381

INDEX

Second Speaker, FirstOpposition, 25

Second Speaker, FirstProposition, 25

Second Speaker, Opposition,21–23

Second Speaker,Proposition, 21, 80

Second Speaker, SecondOpposition, 26

Second Speaker, SecondProposition, 26

Separating arguments,145–147

Severance permutations,179

Sexual harassment, 27–28Shame, use of, 250Shared knowledge base,

212–213Shift, 214Significance, issues ofdegree, 96–97expressing, 108–109refuting claims of, 106–107Signposting arguments, 113Slippery slope, fallacy of, 64,

66Software, tournament tabula-

tion and, 286Solution, optimizing, 164Solution, proposing, 97Solvency, 97, 152Solvency, double, 162Solvency turn, 128Speaker, credibility and,

210–212Speaker of the House, 11,

16, 275Speaker points, 16, 275Speaker, position names for,

17–18Speaker responsibilities,

16–26Speaking scores, rule viola-

tions and, 235–236Specific counterplans, 157Specific knowledge, 45–47Speechesconclusion, 102constructive, 10interruptions of, 205introduction to, proposition

case, 86–89maximizing your time, 74as reactions, 88–89rebuttal, 10summary, 23–24as texts, 186titles, American format,

17–18titles and abbreviations, 11Staff, tournaments and,

286–287Statements, 36, 207States counterplans,

161–162Status quo, 96, 149Straight resolutions or

motions, 32–33Strategic agreement, 104Strategic concessions, 260Strategic points of informa-

tion, 209–212Strategy, optimal opposition,

20Study counterplans,

163–166Style (manner), judging and,

274–275Sub-national government

counterplans, 161–162Substance (matter), judging

and, 274–275Summary speech, 23–24Summation, counter, 160Switch-side debating, 268Syllogisms, 54–55Symbolic action, 133–134,

137

Systemic impacts, 253–255

Tabulations, tournaments,297

Tactics, refutation, 19–21Tag line, 147Tagging arguments, 113–114Target statements, 36Tautology, 49Team collaboration, 82–85Teleology, 188–193Temporality, crisis of,

208–209Testimony, reasoning by, 63Text, counterplans and,

151–2Texts, critiquing, 186Therefore component, 73Thinking, criticism of,

197–201This house, 29, 101Threshold, defined, 138Time frame, impact and, 138Time keeping, 11–12Time, protected, 206Time, remaining, 12Time, yielding, 207Timekeeper, 11–12Time-space case, 100–101Timing, prep time, 84Titles and abbreviations,

speeches, 11Topicality argumentsabout, 39–40burden of proof and, 41counterplans, 156wording and, 40Topicsabout, 10, 30lists as resources, 300procedures and, 12–13Toulmin model, 57–59Toulmin, Stephen, 57–59Tournaments

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 381

382

INDEX

about, 279–300announcing, 282debate divisions in, 280forms of, 279–280opening sessions and, 296operations and, 296–300preparations for hosting,

281–286restrictions, types of, 280round robin, 279staffing, 286–287tabulation software, 286Tradition, appeals to, 65Truisms, 47–49Try or die, 256–257Tunnel vision, 82–83Turns, argumentative,

107–108, 128

Underlying assumptions,48–49

undifferentiated mass, 110Uniqueness argument,

136–137, 142, 145Utilitarianism, 123–124

Value case, 99–100Value claims, 118Value objection, 195Value, resolutions of, 30Values, 52, 152Values, criticizing, 193–197Values, incommensurable,

196Variety, vocal, 242Vested interests, 139Vision, narrow, 82–83Vocal variety, 242Volume, public speaking and,

242

Warrants, 57–59, 75

Weak analogy, fallacy of,66–67

Weighing impact, 251–257Weighing issues, 127–128,

162Word choice, 246–247Word economy, 245–246

Zero-sum game, 15

AAA2b 6/12/02 12:04 AM Page 382

Art, Argument, and Advocacy

Documents

Transcript of Art, Argument, and Advocacy